Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Hayward: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council to discuss the proposed privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

Sir Trevor Skeet: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council; and what subjects he proposes to discuss.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): I meet the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council, John Hatch, from time to time to discuss various matters relating to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Hayward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has not the Electricity Consumers' Council welcomed the proposals on privatisation, particularly those protecting consumers' rights?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. The Electricity Consumers' Council has welcomed a number of aspects of the privatisation proposals, in particular the proposal for customers' rights, which will give customers the right to compensation if the boards fail to perform to an agreed standard.

Sir Trevor Skeet: In view of the increase in electricity prices in April, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the crucial needs of the paper, chemical and metallurgical industries, which have to compete in international markets?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, there is a problem under our present law about making arrangements for heavy industrial users. The industry is under a statutory obligation not to show undue preference to any customer, but we recognise the need to help the heavy industrial user, and the qualifying industrial consumers schemes and other measures that have been adopted give substantial help to the heavy user.

Mr. Benn: Will the Secretary of State explain why, now that a proportion of electricity to be generated must, by law, be nuclear, thus denying market forces, he has opened up to investors from America, where they cannot get nuclear power stations built because of market forces, the right to invest in this country? What consumer right is there in that arrangement?

Mr. Parkinson: We have reserved to the distribution companies the obligation to buy a proportion of their electricity from non-fossil fuel supplies, but we have not specified from where. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the proposed speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, which he will be making in about an hour's time in America. In that speech he will make it clear that he expects the overwhelming proportion of investment in the British electricity industry to be made by British companies.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that up to 12 power stations are now redundant in Britain? What are his plans for those redundant stations under privatisation? Does he know that some local authorities, such as the one in my area, wish to purchase and develop those redundant power stations? What is the future of such plants?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is confirming what the Government have said: that many people, other than the CEGB, wish to be involved in the generation of electricity, and we believe that that competition will provide good hope for consumers in the future.
I notice that the hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, as if to ask me whether the redundant sites will be available for other development. That will be a matter for the CEGB, but there is much interest in buying redundant power stations and remodelling them to meet the highest standards. We hope that the private sector will come along and do some of that.

Mr. Heddle: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Electricity Consumers' Council, will he also discuss with him the rates of interest charged by regional electricity boards to their customers who want to buy cookers and similar appliances? Is he aware that the Midlands electricity board charges its customers 35 per cent. interest? Is that not horrendously high, and does it not cause hardship to pensioners and others who perhaps do not read the small print? Does it not compare badly with the rates charged by banks, building societies, credit card companies and reputable stores?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that the chairman of the East Midlands board will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. If not, I shall certainly make sure that they are brought to his attention.

Mr. Prescott: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the board—and such a meeting is urgent—I hope that he will discuss the 15 per cent. increase that is to be imposed on prices. In the judgment of the Electricty Consumers' Council that increase is unjustified and represents a tax on the consumer. Is he aware that that view is consistent with the view of the CBI, which says that it is unsound in business terms and will cost investment in jobs? Can the Secretary of State tell the House what group, if any, agrees with this imposition of a 15 per cent. increase? Will he review his decision and recognise that in reality the price increase is an energy privatisation tax, burdening the poor for the benefit of the better off?

Mr. Parkinson: I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman why I think he is wrong, and I have also explained to the CBI why I think that it is wrong in the arguments that it has put forward. The price rises are totally justifiable and necessary. The hon. Gentleman was not in the Labour Government of the time, but I can tell


him that, even after these increases, there will be a fall in electricty prices in real terms, whereas there was an increase of more than 30 per cent. under the Labour Government.

EC Energy Policy

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he is satisfied with progress towards the development of a European Community energy policy; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Peter Morrison): Yes, Sir. The prospects for attaining the Community's 1995 energy objectives are under review and Commission proposals on completion of the energy market by 1992 are expected shortly.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that progress has been disappointly slow so far? Do the Government intend to take any initiatives to try to speed things up?

Mr. Morrison: I know that my hon. Friend likes to see fast progress in Europe. Certainly the Government take the initiative to make sure that such progress is made. My hon. Friend will appreciate that the supply of energy in the member states is different and, therefore, it is not all that easy to make progress as fast as my hon. Friend would like.

Mr. Redmond: Does the Minister agree that he is contradicting himself in advocating some sort of common European policy when the Government are operating market forces? How does he relate the two?

Mr. Morrison: No, I do not agree, because, as I said in my original answer, we are working towards 1992, when there will be transparency pricing, which is market policy.

Mr. Marlow: Will the Community energy policy be anything like the common agricultural policy? For example, will those who wish to import coal have to deposit heavy levies, or, like generating companies which wish to use coal in the Community, will they be able to buy that coal from the cheapest source at the cheapest possible price?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. It will not be precisely the same, for the reasons that I gave in my second answer, namely, that the supply of fossil fuels in this country is different from the supply in other member states.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Is the Minister satisfied that, in discussions about European energy policy, full cognisance has been taken of the need to allocate orders, for example, to the fabrication yards connected with the development of North sea oil? Is he aware of the concern among workers at Ardersier about the need for the allocation of early opportunities to develop platforms for the North sea?

Mr. Morrison: I know that the hon. Lady is most concerned about fabrication yards and, as she knows, I visited the one to which she referred. As she will have read, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced an 11th round. We continue to make progress in the North sea in exploration and development, and that is for the medium and longer-term good of those fabrication yards.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his timetable for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Parkinson: The Government intend to introduce legislation to privatise the electricity supply industry as early as possible. I expect that this will be in the next Session of Parliament.

Mr. Patchett: Has the Minister calculated the possible number of redundancies in the British coal industry as a result of privatisation of the electricity industry owing to the import of cheap, subsidised foreign coal, or does he simply not care about those redundancies?

Mr. Parkinson: I have explained before to the hon. Gentleman that our proposals mean that the industry will need about 75 million tonnes of coal a year and that the Government have funded the most extensive investment programme in the coal industry of any Government. We have done that because we believe that, with modern machinery and modern working methods, the British coal industry can capture a very substantial part of those 75 million tonnes.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend, in concert with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, make it plain to pensioners and others that, despite the increase in electricity tariffs being higher than the rate of inflation, the combined effect of that and social security legislation will leave them better off?

Mr. Parkinson: I am happy to confirm that what my hon. Friend says is correct.

Mr. Maclennan: What account is the Secretary of State taking in his privatisation planning of the fact that the CEGB has been financing the fast reactor programme to the extent of 30 per cent., and that there is great anxiety about the withdrawal of that support and whether the Government intend to continue the fast reactor programme?

Mr. Parkinson: I know of the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about this matter, as he and I first met and discussed it at Dounreay. No decisions have yet been taken. The CEGB has to decide whether to continue with this funding. These matters are for discussion, but I recognise that they should be resolved as soon as possible and that his constituents should be kept fully informed.

Mr. Watts: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there are safeguards over the operation of the local distribution networks so that privatised area boards cannot exert monoply control to prevent small local generators from delivering electricity to local industrial consumers?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. We are anxious that the small generators should have an opportunity to get into the system. We believe that under our proposals that will be possible, whereas under the present arrangements it has proved difficult.

Mr. Hardy: At what point in the timetable does the Secretary of State expect to be able to advise the House and the country of the price at which the electricity supply industry will be sold? Would he care to suggest whether an industry with a net asset value of £55 billion will be sold for less than 40 per cent. of its worth?

Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that I do not recognise the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just used. I have never heard anyone suggest that the net assets of the organisation are worth £55 billion. I am constantly being told by Labour Members that I am seeking too high a price for the industry, so it is a relief to be told now that the Government are thinking of selling it too cheaply. We intend to get a fair price for the industry, and that will become clear as time goes on.

Open and Coke Fires

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many households are estimated to have open coal or coke fires; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Morrison: I understand from British Coal that an estimated 2·9 million households are using coal or solid smokeless fuels on open fires.

Mr. Greenway: How does that figure compare with the previous known figure? Has there been a decline, or an increase? Labour Members call for cheaper fuel for poorer people, so will such people be able to burn imported cheap fuel on their open fires rather than more expensive home-produced fuel?

Mr. Morrison: The available figure shows a slight decrease on the previous year, but that is hardly surprising given the mild winter.
As to my hon. Friend's second point, if British Coal produces coal competitively, more households will be likely to buy.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Is the Minister aware that many coal fires are going out because—[Laughter.] I thought that that was rather good. This is happening because smokeless zones have been introduced. Therefore, people have been left with only one fire, so they cannot properly heat their homes. Could British Coal offer grants to such people when an area is made smokeless, so that they can afford to put in central heating, or will he ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to allow local authorities to give such grants?

Mr. Morrison: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the polite way in which he posed that question. There will be agreement on both sides of the House that the benefits of smokeless zones are substantial.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's proposition, British Coal's time is already taken up in seeking to increase productivity. That is the most important aim and ambition of its production.

Mr. Patnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the death of coal as a heating product is due to the fact that local authorities do not build chimney breasts into houses? There has been a saving from clean-air zones, but does my hon. Friend agree that part of the price that the mining industry has had to pay is that fewer people burn coal and now use other forms of energy?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that there are no doubt many reasons why households decide not to use coal and use instead oil, gas or electricity. I should have thought that the primary reason is cost. That is why it is crucial that British Coal and its labour force should seek ways to improve productivity.

Combined Heat and Power

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what further considerations the Government are giving; to the promotion of combined heat and power systems.

Mr. Peter Morrison: The Energy Efficiency Office will continue to promote combined heat and power technology. The privatisation of the electricity supply industry will open new business opportunities for all independent generators, including combined heat and power operators.

Ms. Quin: The Government appear to want to rely on the private sector for any development of combined heat and power. Does the Minister accept that if large areas, such as our cities, are to benefit from combined heat and power, substantial Government support and funding will be necessary? Does he further accept that if he introduces combined heat and power into our cities that would be a gigantic step towards the more effective use and conservation of energy for the future?

Mr. Morrison: I accept that combined heat and power can be a great asset in a major city. I have seen examples of it in Sheffield and Leicester. However, I cannot agree with the hon. Lady that Government finance should be available. It is far better that market forces should prevail.

Mr. Rost: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the contribution that combined heat and power can make in our cities, not only to the production of cheaper electricity and heating to overcome fuel poverty, but to the urban renewal programme? Will he speak to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is supposed to be co-ordinating the Government programme on this, and ensure that there is an input into those programmes?

Mr. Morrison: I agree with my hon. Friend that the contribution that is made, particularly in the two examples that I have seen in Leicester and Sheffield, is a great and good contribution. I shall ensure that my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry sees those examples.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I join the Minister in looking forward to more combined heat and power generation. One of the ways in which that may take place is through the reopening of smaller coal-fired power stations. Following the Government's rejection of the EEC's offer to reduce sulphur and nitrogen emissions in the air and the resulting acid rain, it is possible that the opening of combined heat and power stations will increase sulphur emissions. How will the proposed privatisation affect that?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what the Government said about emissions. As I have already said in answer to previous questions, the potential for combined heat and power in certain major cities in this country, and perhaps elsewhere, can be great, but it will be subject to market conditions.

Central Electricity Generating Board

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what subjects were discussed.

Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of the CEGB regularly to discuss various matters relating to the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

Dr. Reid: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of the CEGB, does he have the same impression as many others, that the chairman has forgotten more about the electricity industry than the Minister will ever know, and does he agree, therefore, that his comments should be taken seriously? Will the Secretary of State respond to the statement by Graham Hadley, the secretary of the CEGB, supported by the chairman of the CEGB, that the separation of the grid from generation will cost the taxpayer up to £1 billion, or 10 per cent., on electricity charges, and will increase the threat of blackouts? What is in that for the consumer, and what makes the Minister think that he knows better than the CEGB?

Mr. Parkinson: I believe that if the hon. Gentleman cared to ring Mr. Graham Hadley he would now discover that he no longer maintains that it would cost £1 billion. Mr. Hadley's figure, which was absolutely impossible to understand, was based on the assumption that the Government would propose the creation of five vertically integrated power boards. We have not. It is agreed between the CEGB and our technical experts that although there may be a cost as a result of our proposals, it can be more than matched by the savings that will result. The hon. Gentleman's information is grossly out of date.

Mr. Wells: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the CEGB, will he explain how welcome and well-engineered the privatisation proposals are? Will he also explain how the introduction of competition will be welcome to those who supply the CEGB with equipment, as it will enable them to put more competitive designs forward, which will in turn enable them once more to export to the world?

Mr. Parkinson: I should be happy to put those points to Lord Marshall, and at the same time I would remind him that the Electricity Council, the 12 area boards and the Electricity Consumers' Council totally support our proposals. I draw that to the attention of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the chairman of the CEGB about improving the transmission system in England and Wales to make it possible for consumers in those areas to take advantage of the substantial availability of generating capacity in Scotland?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I have discussed strengthening the interconnect. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that there are plans to spend approximately £7 billion on strengthening the transmission system in England and Wales, including strengthening the Scottish interconnect.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend ask Lord Marshall what he is doing to counter the recent alarmist programme on BBC "Panorama", which linked the magnetic field around high-tension cables with cancer? If my right hon. Friend disagrees with the findings of that programme, may I ask what is his Department doing to put the record straight?

Mr. Parkinson: I believe that the "Panorama" programme was essentially scaremongering. To date I believe that there has been one authority for this thesis, and he has said that the findings of his inquiry are suggestive rather than conclusive. The CEGB is spending

£500,000 investigating that serious allegation, but it is confident that it will find that the link is extremely tenuous.

Mr. Prescott: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman the speech that is to be made by his Minister in Miami? Apparently the Minister is begging American capital to come to purchase the British electricity supply industry, thus removing the controls on foreign ownership. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether his promise to the House for tougher regulations to protect the consumer in a privatised electricity industry is consistent with the promise in the speech today to American capital that the regulatory controls will be less restrictive than they are in America? The increasing profits will no doubt be paid for by the consumer.

Mr. Parkinson: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend's speech will not be delivered for another hour. When it is, he will find that it conclusively answers the points that he has raised. My hon. Friend's speech will make it clear that in America — it would be beyond dispute if the hon. Gentleman knew anything about it — it is accepted that the regulatory system is so restrictive that it is inhibiting the development of the electricity supply industry and putting the consumers at risk. We have said — and my hon. Friend has my total support — that although we will have a tough regulatory system, we will not have one that is so tough and mindless that it puts the customers' interests at risk.

Electricity Generating Stations

Mr. Hannam: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board in order to discuss the ordering programme for electricity generating stations.

Mr. Parkinson: It is for the CEGB to decide when to order new power stations. My hon. Friend will be aware that the CEGB has applied for consent for a nuclear plant at Hinkley Point and two coal-fired stations at Fawley and West Burton.

Mr. Hannam: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as there will be a three or four-year delay before the generating side is privatised, it is important that we keep the ordering programme for nuclear and coal-fired power stations moving, especially in the light of the early closure of the Magnox nuclear stations?

Mr. Parkinson: I believe that it is important that we maintain a steady flow of orders for the electricity supply industry, because we have not had an order for a power station now for eight years and the supply industry has had tremendous problems. As a result of our proposals more people will come forward with proposals to build power stations. That should result in an acceleration rather than a slowing down of orders for the industry.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Secretary of State accept that we found his answer to a previous question in relation to the strengthening of the transmission links between England and Scotland very interesting? Has he discussed the purchase of power from Scottish power stations with the chairman of British Coal so that we may receive a


statement and some clarification about the future of coal-fired power stations in Scotland? There is a great deal of uncertainty over their future as a result of the attitude taken by the South of Scotland Electricity Board.

Mr. Parkinson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, negotiations between British Coal and the SSEB are under way at the moment. I have made it clear that I want to see those negotiations succeed. I would like to see Scottish pits kept open and Scottish electricity derived from Scottish coal. There is no doubt about where I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland stand on this matter. With regard to the interconnect, I believe that England offers a good export market for Scottish electricity. I hope that the SSEB will take advantage of its opportunities south of the border.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the timing of the power stations depends very much on the planning process? Has he noticed that Liberal-controlled Somerset county council has allocated £500,000 to tight the planning aspects and the whole concept of nuclear power on the Hinkley C site? As the rates have been increased by 12 per cent. to fund that, does my right hon. Friend agree that the ratepayers are having to pay for the anti-nuclear prejudices of the Somerset branch of the Social Liberal Democratic Alliance?

Mr. Parkinson: It is perfectly proper for the Somerset council to express its views and to ensure that its point of view is put over. We do not want to inhibit that. However, I hope that the council will concentrate on doing that rather than on making party political points about the nuclear power industry. In so far as the council is spending that money to promote political arguments rather than planning arguments, that must be deplored.

British Coal

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Coal to discuss the future of the industry in the light of his proposals to privatise the electricity industry.

Mr. Parkinson: I meet the chairman of the British Coal Corporation regularly to discuss all aspects of the industry.

Mr. Janner: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Coal the plight of Leicestershire's highly skilled coal miners, whose pits are being closed one by one? Is he aware that the opening of the pit at Asfordby is not enough to provide jobs, particularly on the basis on which they are to be allocated? Is he aware that more mines should be opened in the Vale of Belvoir to provide low-cost coal and jobs and because the skilled and excellent band of miners led by Jack Jones deserve the Government's support? They are not getting nearly enough of that support.

Mr. Parkinson: I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government have invested more in the coal industry than any predecessor Government. We have invested a total of nearly £9 billion since 1979. As he points out, substantial investment is being made in Asfordby. In contrast to the position when the Labour party was in

office, miners now have a very generous redundancy scheme and no miner has been made compulsorily redundant. They can have either a generous redundancy scheme or another job. That is the case in Leicestershire.

Mr. Griffiths: In the Secretary of State's discussions with the chairman of British Coal, has he talked about the future of coal imports into the United Kingdom and the possible effect that the exchange rate might have upon the cost of these imports? Has he expressed a view to him about whether the exchange rate policy should be that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or that of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity, but I hope that he will not object if I concentrate on the energy part of his supplementary question. I have discussed with the chairman of the CEGB the amount of coal-fired capacity that he has. If British Coal continues to improve its productivity, and if miners adopt modern methods to accompany the modern machinery that has been installed, I believe that British Coal can have a bright future as a supplier of choice to the electricity supply industry.

Mr. Andy Stewart: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he draw to his attention the views expressed to me by some of my constituents that British Coal applies double standards when offering redundancy?
A number of my constituents have been refused redundancy this month, while a gentleman in Yorkshire, who is alleged to have created 51 wildcat stoppages and cost the board £14 million., has been given generous redundancy. Is there no loyalty today?

Mr. Parkinson: If my hon. Friend writes to me about these specific matters, I shall take them up with the chairman of British Coal.

Mr. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. Friend think that sometimes those who purport to represent the coal industry expend rather too much energy on trying to protect their jobs regardless of the cost, when they should be seeking ways of keeping customers happy? Does he agree that that is the best way to secure real jobs?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the best guarantee of maintaining jobs in the industry is by concentrating on ensuring that coal is supplied to the Coal Board's customers at competitive prices.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Secretary of State aware that 1,094 men left the coal industry in south Wales on Friday, and that 694 of them are in my constituency? These are men who opted for redundancy. Only 130 decided to stay in the industry. This is because the majority no longer have any faith in the promises made by those who run the industry.
Will the Secretary of State pay tribute to those who have worked for so long in the industry and who, through no fault of their own, are now out of a job? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the redundancies have pushed male unemployment in my constituency to 34 per cent., which is unacceptable? Will he make additional moneys available to British Coal Enterprise Ltd?

Mr. Parkinson: We are examining the performance of British Coal Enterprise Ltd., and funds are being made available to it on a continuing basis. We deplore pit


closures, but very often pits close for good reasons. Pits become worked out, as it were, and geological faults occur. The hon. Lady has confirmed that anyone who works in the industry has the choice of staying in the industry or taking extremely generous redundancy terms.

Electricity Privatisation

Mr. Hanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received from alternative energy interests about the White Paper on electricity privatisation.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Our proposal for a specified minimum proportion of non-fossil-fuelled generating capacity has been well received by those involved in the development of alternative energy sources. We hope that this will encourage new ideas in generation.

Mr. Hanley: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to non-fossil fuels, which is in accordance with the White Paper? What role does he see for renewable energy sources following privatisation?

Mr. Morrison: There could be a good possibility that there will be a role for them. My hon. Friend will appreciate that that will be subject to further research and development taking place so that renewable energy sources can become competitive. The research and development programme is proceeding. This was demonstrated by an announcement by the CEGB and another by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State last week.

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if, pursuant to his statement to the House on 7 March, Official Report, column 53, he will place in the Library the technical and scientific evidence upon which he based his conclusion that the grid control will have the same ability to deal with emergencies in electricity supply under the proposed privatisation as it does under the present arrangements.

Mr. Parkinson: No, Sir. This is an operational matter. The full range of powers to deal with emergencies will be available to those controlling the national grid under the proposed arrangements, as under the present ones. This will be built into the contract arrangements and the operating agreements.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware that a number of his hon. Friends, as well as a number of mine, went to CEGB Southwark, where we heard at length from Mr. Edgar McCarthy, the controller, about the Sundon incident 20 May 1986, when, if, within two minutes, post-fault urgent action had not been taken by those who had complete command of the grid London and the home counties would have been absolutely blacked out by system voltage collapse? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure Mr. McCarthy and others, on technical grounds, that their fears are groundless?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes. There will be no change in either the assets or the operation of the grid. What will change will be the ownership of the generating stations. The only basis for the assertion made to the hon. Gentleman is that under private ownership generating plants will not respond to orders from the national grid. As I have explained to him, it will be built into their contracts that in an emergency the national grid will have the right to

override any other agreements. Therefore, the same assets will be available to the grid controllers, who will be able to give the same instructions in an emergency as in 1986.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Enterprise Allowance Scheme

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister for the Arts to what extent the enterprise allowance scheme has affected those involved in the arts.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): At 30 September 1987 some 7,500 people in the arts—authors, artists, film and television producers—were in receipt of enterprise allowances. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that a substantial number of arts people who receive allowances go on to become self-supporting.

Mr. Knapman: Those figures seem most encouraging, but can my right hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of all people they represent, and what proportion of those who have benefited have become self-sufficient?

Mr. Luce: I think that it is good news that an estimated 7 per cent. of all those who received the allowances are from the artistic world and wish to set up their own businesses, of one kind or another, in that world. Although no figures are available relating specifically to the arts, it is clear that some 77 per cent. of all those who receive the allowances are still self-supporting, on a self-employed basis, six months after the allowances have ceased.

Mr. Bowis: I am sure that the arts have an enormous part to play in this regard. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that setting up a new business in the arts is a matter not only of commercial viability but of artistic quality? Where do people go for advice on that when they are setting up their business? Is such advice provided by his Office, or by the Small Firms Service?

Mr. Luce: As my hon. Friend has said, business viability must be taken into account by the assessors at the Department of Employment. But, on a question of artistic merit, it is perfectly possible to go to bodies such as the British Film Institute or the regional arts associations to seek further advice.

Mr. Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend understand that, whereas the enterprise allowance scheme may not be the most effective way of helping the Horniman museum in south London, everything must be done to ensure that that museum has a continued existence as a nationally supported museum?

Mr. Luce: Yes. I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's point about the importance of the Horniman museum. It has been in existence for a very long time and provides an important service. This is a matter principally for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but I am in contact with him about it.

Arts Council Funding (Liverpool)

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Minister for the Arts when he last met the chairman of the Playhouse theatre and the Everyman theatre, Liverpool, to discuss their level of Arts Council funding.

Mr. Luce: I have not met the chairmen of these theatres to discuss Arts Council funding.

Mr. Wareing: The tragic abolition of the Merseyside county council created a very tenuous future for the theatres on Merseyside. Does the Minister agree that the Merseyside cultural heritage is important, not only for the people on Merseyside, but for a national, and indeed international, catchment area? Should not its continuity be ensured by regular Government assistance and certainty of security? If the Government can ensure the future of the Tate gallery on Merseyside, why not the Playhouse theatre and the Everyman theatre?

Mr. Luce: I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that the range of performing arts and heritage facilities in the Liverpool and Merseyside area is very remarkable. I feel that Liverpool and Merseyside should do more to get that across to the nation if they want to attract more tourists. The theatres to which he referred—the Playhouse and Everyman — have been very successful. A substantial proportion of the resources are raised by box-office means and through the private sector, but I am very glad that the Arts Council has agreed to maintain its support pending a study of funding arrangements in the Liverpool area and in acknowledgement that the city authority has come in with an extra £200,000.

Mr. Tony Banks: I commend the Liverpool Playhouse to the Minister, especially its production of "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists", which will be on at the Theatre Royal, Stratford in my constituency in Newham from 14 April to 14 May. In view of the funding problems faced by the Theatre Royal, would the Minister care to accept an invitation from me to see this production of "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" and, if he comes, I shall buy him a curry in Stratford immediately afterwards?

Mr. Luce: That is one of the most generous and surprising offers that I have ever had and, to use Government jargon, I shall carefully consider the invitation. I have visited the Playhouse in Liverpool, which is an admirable theatre. I am keen on promoting touring around this country, not just from London to outside London but around the regions. That is very important.

Photographs (Schools)

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Minister for the Arts how many (a) visits and (b) residencies of photographers in schools were financed by the Arts Council in the last year for which statistics are available.

Mr. Luce: Detailed information on this subject is not held centrally. The information that is available shows that at least 151 visits and eight residencies of photographers in schools were financed by the Arts Council and the regional arts associations in 1986–87.

Mr.Boyes: I think the Minister agrees that these visits and residencies should be encouraged. We are all pleased at his continuing contribution to and encouragement of photography but does he agree that even more can be done? Can he find more money within his budget to give to the Arts Council so that there can be more visits and residencies? If he cannot, will he look for a bit of creative accountancy and find out whether there can be some burseries from his Department to encourage more photographers to carry out these exercises?

Mr. Luce: I do not under-estimate the importance of photography, in which the public have a growing interest. The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the Arts Council and the regional arts associations have a limited sum of money and various priorities to determine, and it must be up to them to decide how to disburse that money. I am glad to learn that some regional authorities are promoting a closer interest between photography and education; for example, the North-West arts association held a seminar on that matter last week.

Theatre Funding (Leicester)

Mr. Janner: To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will discuss with the Arts Council the level of funding for the theatre in Leicester.

Mr. Luce: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Janner: I regret the Minister's lack of plans. Will he pay tribute to the work of the Haymarket theatre in Leicester and to its resilience, especially in supporting and encouraging new writing, and its successful efforts towards meeting its deficits through its plays, which are sent on to the West End stage? Will the right hon. Gentleman provide some assurance of long-term adequate funding for this tremendously useful and excellent theatre?

Mr. Luce: I, too, should like to acknowledge the Haymarket theatre's enterprise. I am glad that the Arts Council, the city council and the county council are undertaking constructive negotiations on its long-term future and funding. It is only right that we should look to theatres to raise resources from the private sector as well. I am looking for more self-reliance by arts organisations.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should look to those who claim constantly that there is widespread support for the arts in Leicester and elsewhere and that those who want and support the arts should pay for them? Does my right hon. Friend not think it high time that the hard-pressed taxpayer was relieved of this constant burden of the arts and that those who claim that the arts have widespread support were asked to pay a greater contribution more directly?

Mr. Luce: I have introduced the concept of incentive funding so that taxpayers' money can be used to reward those who are capable of becoming more self-reliant. That is at the heart of our policies.

Premium Book Subscription Service

Mr. Sedgemore: To ask the Minister for the Arts what evidence he has of a desire by library authorities to introduce a premium book subscription service for newly published books.

Mr. Luce: One library authority recently drew up proposals to set up a complementary premium lending service for newly published novels and biographies, but did not proceed because it was advised that to do so would be in breach of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. I have also received letters from members of the public saying that they would like libraries to provide subscription services. My Green Paper therefore suggests that library authorities should have discretionary powers, to set up these services.

Mr. Sedgemore: Is the Minister aware that when this harebrained scheme was introduced in New Zealand, 66


per cent. of the income was taken up in administration costs, and when it was introduced in Kiel in Germany it was dropped quickly because loans of children's books fell by 40 per cent.? Are we really to have new books for the rich, and old, dog-eared books for the poor, with each book having to meet a test discount rate and a real rate of return?

Mr. Luce: That is a nonsensical way to consider the Green Paper. The objectives of the Green Paper are to seek ways to enable local authorities to raise extra resources, not just through the public sector, but in harness with the private sector, so that they can raise extra resources to improve the library services for customers. That proposal was one of several designed to achieve just that.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: My right hon. Friend knows my concern about the closure of many public libraries in London because of alleged lack of resources, particularly in Kingswood in my constituency. Will not the premium subscription lending service generate resouces to improve library services generally?

Mr. Luce: Yes, indeed. That is one reason why we introduced for consideration that suggestion, among others. Other suggestions, including the paying of charges for certain specialist services in one field or another, are all designed to increase resources and improve facilities to customers.

Mr. Fisher: Since the Green Paper is a consultative document, no doubt the Minister is taking a keen interest in the public responses to his proposals. Has he seen last week's copy of the Library Association "Record", which describes his Green Paper as
an impenetrable forest of negatives … A dog's breakfast …. patronising … badly written … confusing … and weak on logic.
Should not the Minister save himself further embarrassment by withdrawing his ridiculous proposals now?

Mr. Luce: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not interested in new ways of finding extra resources. It is regrettable that he adopts that attitide. The views of the chief executive of the Library Association have been positive, constructive and helpful. I look for such an attitude of mind, but I do not expect it from the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Government Management

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received about the implications for the implementation of the White Paper "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps," of the recent leak of a letter from Mr. Paul Gray to Mr. Tom Jeffrey about educational testing; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): I have received no representations about the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Was it proper for Mr. Ingham's office, a Civil Service office, to give authority for the leak? Will there be a leak inquiry, and if not, why not?

Mr. Luce: Mr. Ingham must be very flattered by the amount of attention that he receives from the hon.

Gentleman. The position remains quite clear. The Prime Minister stated on 14 March that it is not the usual practice to give information on such matters.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister say why millions of pounds of public money are being spent in bringing management and computer consultants into various Government Departments to do jobs that could be done perfectly well by civil servants?

Mr. Luce: If bringing in consultants is designed to improve the management of the Civil Service and get better value for money for taxpayers, that is the right thing to do.

Examinations

Mr. Holt: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has any plans to alter the present entry or promotion exams in the Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: No, Sir. Selection for entry to and promotion in the Civil Service is on merit. I expect that to continue and shall encourage it. Procedures are, however, altered as the skills and qualities civil servants need change.

Mr. Holt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he tell me why, on the examination forms for entry and promotion, the ethnic origin of candidates has to be stated? Are there two standards, one for those who are indigenous, and one for immigrants? Will he also tell me why, in the Ministry of Defence, there are at present vacancies for 535 clerical officers, while in the north of England there is a desperate shortage of work? What will he do to redress the balance?

Mr. Luce: The question about the Ministry of Defence is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Let me make it absolutely plain that the Government are equality of opportunity employers. We recruit people into the Civil Service and promote them only on the basis of equality of opportunity. The reason for obtaining information from recruits about their ethnic origin is to ensure, as best we conceivably can, that a policy of promotion on merit and equality of opportunity is properly run and devised by the Government.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether in future, when civil servants have examinations to pass, they will also have a paper before them on how to leak without getting caught. If they need any advice on that, could the Minister suggest that it should be preceded by a seminar headed by Bernard Ingham and the Prime Minister to help them out?

Mr. Luce: I am glad to say that the Civil Service does not adhere to the standards that the hon. Gentleman seems to want.

Civil Service Reform

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what are the implications for the Office of Arts and Libraries of the proposed reforms of the Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: Like all other Government Departments, the Office of Arts and Libraries will be considering how to apply the recommendations of the "Next Steps" report to its own operations, though most of the functions which it funds are carried out by non-departmental public bodies.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Knowing the meticulous care that my right hon. Friend brings to his Ministry, will he tell the House whether he has yet had discussions with his other half, the Minister for the Arts, and what was the outcome?

Mr. Luce: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has a mind of his own. He is quite difficult to get alongside, but I will try.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: In the light of the opportunities now offered by the reform of the Civil Service, may I enlist the support of the Minister in pressing for a Cabinet post for the arts in recognition of their importance in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Luce: I think that we are going a little beyond the Civil Service questions. However, I am flattered by the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion.

Agencies

Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he expects to meet the Civil Service trade unions to discuss the proposals for agencies for the Civil Service.

Mr. Luce: I have no plans to meet the Civil Service unions at present but the head of the Home Civil Service has made it clear that he is open to consultations.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that one of the largest Civil Service regional centres is in Nottingham, in my constituency of Nottingham, North, where the Government buildings at Chalfont drive have the Land Registry, the district valuers, the Property Services Agency, the Wages Inspectorate and the Ordnance Survey section? Will he, or one of his colleagues, meet the trade unions representatives on that large site and reassure them that by this time next year they will not be added to the list of Nottingham's 14,000 unemployed?

Mr. Luce: I am glad that there are such a large number of civil servants in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and area. In fact, four out of five of all civil servants are well outside the London region. That policy is one that the Government are encouraging. Meetings with the unions are for the Departments concerned.

Mr. Grocott: Does the Minister recognise the widespread anxiety among civil servants about the effect that the agencies will have on nationally negotiated wage rates? What can he say to the House today to reassure those civil servants, many of whom are long-standing civil servants who have made career decisions over many years, that their position will not be eroded by the Government's policies?

Mr. Luce: There is no doubt about the importance of the agencies and the wide welcome that they have received from many people in the Civil Service. They will devolve more responsibility on to the shoulders of managers and that is more likely to lead to a better use of Government and taxpayers' resources. On the matter of terms and conditions of service, they remain civil servants within the agencies. It is a matter for negotiation between the Departments concerned and the agency being set up as to the exact terms and conditions of service. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the unions concerned will be fully consulted if there are any proposals for changes in terms and conditions.

Mr. Chapman: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he is yet in a position to give the definitive list

of those organisations which will be the first to be formed into agencies, as part of the implementation of the recommendations of the recent efficiency unit report, "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps".

Mr. Luce: An initial list of possibilities was published on 18 February. These and other candidates will be considered on their merits.

Mr. Chapman: I welcome the report and the Prime Minister's statement that the Government intend to implement the establishment of agencies. As the proposal has been widely welcomed, both outside and inside the Civil Service, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider keeping up the momentum and encouraging the establishment of agencies as a topmost priority?

Mr. Luce: Yes, of course I will. The project manager, Mr. Kemp, is now fully settled in the Department and we are working on drawing up the first list for implementation as soon as possible with the Departments concerned. As my hon. Friend knows, there is an initial list of 12, and we shall make an announcement as soon as we have one to make.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister interested in efficiency a bit nearer home? Did he notice that earlier this Question Time a messenger arrived, bewigged from the Lords, and handed a bundle of documents done up in red tape to the Serjeant at Arms, who handed the bundle to the Attendant who normally marks up the times of debates, who handed it to the Doorkeeper, who brought it round via the No Lobby to behind the Chair and handed it to our Clerk? Surely there is a more efficient method for bringing messages from the Lords and carrying them the last 25 yards to our Clerk.

Mr. Luce: I have to answer for the Civil Service and not for procedures in this House, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. But the more that can be done to get rid of red tape, the better.

Ex-Civil Servants (Employment)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many former civil servants have taken up employment with companies in a contractual relationship with Her Majesty's Government in the last five years.

Mr. Luce: I am glad to report that the system for dealing with these cases continues to work well. Comprehensive information is not available centrally. However, applications which have been referred by Departments to the Cabinet Office in accordance with the business appointment rules show that, between 1983 and 1987, 519 civil servants have sought approval to join companies with which they had had contractual contact.

Mr. Banks: Is the Minister not aware of the concern that exists about the number of people leaving the Civil Service to do precisely what he has just described? It seems that in the Ministry of Defence a large number of contracts are resulting in the British taxpayer being ripped off by private contractors. Would it not be better for the Ministry to prohibit civil servants from going to work for any organisation that has had any contractual relationship with the Government for a period of at least 10 years?

Mr. Luce: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman takes a very limited view, although not necessarily a very


surprising one. Just as business men have a contribution to make in periods of secondment to the Civil Service, so civil servants have a contribution to make to the outside world. All that matters is that they should take up jobs that

do not conflict with their previous appointment. That is why adequate procedures have been provided to deal with the matter, through the Diamond committee.

Community Charges Regulations (Scotland)

Mr. John Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help us in relation to the regulations that are to be debated for an hour and a half at 10.15 this evening, which relate to the establishment of the register for the community charge — the poll tax — in Scotland. There was lengthy questioning of the Leader of the House during business questions last week, and on at least four different occasions the right hon. Gentleman described the regulations as trivial and technical.
May I ask you, Sir, for your assistance and guidance? First, can the Leader of the House describe in that way a very detailed and important measure establishing the whole registration system for this unwanted and unfair tax in Scotland and get away with it? Secondly, is it in order for the Government to lay before the House regulations part of which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has described as unlawful because its provisions require registration officers to undertake something that they have no power to do? Thirdly, can the House give powers to registration officers to undertake something that the House and the Government have refused to define?
Two aspects of the form to be filled in are incomplete. For instance, it asks students—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Those are matters which are best put to the Minister later tonight, although I can answer the hon. Gentleman's first two questions. First, it is in order for the matter to be debated tonight. Secondly, I heard the way in which the Leader of the House described the regulations. I do not think that anything that comes before the House is trivial. I am sure that that is a very important matter and I shall listen with great interest to the debate later tonight.

Mr. Maxton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take your point, but I was going to ask you for some guidance. This is not something that is happening at some time in the future. The process of registration that—is to be debated this evening—on Monday—starts on 1 April, which is Friday of this week. Hon. Members may think, "Well, that's Good Friday," but I assure them that Good Friday is not necessarily a public holiday in Scotland. Registration starts on Friday, so matters that are not covered are of great importance to the House.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, your ruling is correct when you say that you cannot interfere, but I suggest that it is time that the House asked you to look into the matter to see whether greater control of statutory instruments should be given to the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have looked at the matter—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have looked at the matter and noted what the statutory instruments Committee said on it, but there are precedents for what is happening tonight. It is in order for the debate to proceed. On Friday the motion making it a debate lasting one and a half hours was passed.

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will remember that I raised this matter on Thursday, along with many of my hon. Friends. There was an expression of great outrage from the Opposition on Thursday. We hoped that the Leader of the House would take account of that and alter the timetable, but nothing has been done about it. There are 101 or more anomalies, points of question and worries that can be raised and only an hour and a half in which to do it. I know that, of the 72 hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, the vast majority want to speak on the matter—[Interruption.] We shall have only one minute each if the debate lasts an hour and a half. Perhaps some of the exiled Scots who interfere in our debates from time to time will also want to speak.
Given all the representations that were made on Thursday and the fact that the Labour Front Bench has raised a point of order today, and as I suspect that several of my hon. Friends are also concerned about it, there must be some way, Mr. Speaker, that you can say to the Government that the measure, which is important, and is not trival and technical, must be given proper time for adequate scrutiny by the House. If you are not able to do so, you should be given powers to enable you to do so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: That is a different matter. At the moment I have no authority to intervene in such matters. If the hon. Gentleman had been here on Friday, he would have been able to object to the motion that was passed without opposition.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect to what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, about there being precedents, may I say that the nature of the tax and the intrusion into personal liberty have no precedent, particularly in modern legislation? Conservative Members might reflect on the fact that Scotland is being used as a guinea pig—I am not being disrespectful to my country. Therefore, it would behove them to look at what the statutory instruments Committee said and it would behove the House to look at the modern techniques that are available to Government to use information that the registration officers will acquire for purposes outwith the collection of the tax. Therefore, we need the protection of the House. The House exists to protect the people, not just the Executive. If we were doing our job, we should tell the Executive that the statutory instrument is out of order and ultra vires, and should not be debated.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies who are rising that I can do nothing about the matter. A motion was passed on Friday and it is not within my power to do anything about it. A large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate on the Education Reform Bill, which is to take place under a timetable motion, and we should get to it.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we, as a matter of procedure, try to ensure that points of order are raised as points of order and not as arguments about the matter under consideration? On Friday, the House passed the motion without a Division.


The Opposition had an opportunity to vote on the matter, but hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were not here. Can we maintain the proper procedure and not have people cheating?

Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that it is primary legislation that gives the Government the power to introduce statutory instruments, and that that was the time when the detail should have been debated? It was debated and the Opposition lost. Will you confirm that this is not the first time that legislation such as this has been handled in this way? We can remember the selective employment tax, which was just as hideous and odious as some may believe the community charge to be. Will you confirm that there is nothing out of order in what will happen this evening?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already said that.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call two more hon. Members, but then we must get on.

Mr. John Home Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You advised my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that last Friday it was open to us to object to this procedure. Is it not a fact that that would have curtailed the debate, which is not what we want to achieve? You have said that there is nothing that you can do, but do you appreciate that the problem is that not only is there nothing that you can do but that there is nothing that the elected representatives of the people of Scotland can do? How on earth can we protect the constitution of the United Kingdom in the face of a Government who seem hell bent on breaking up the United Kingdom?

Mr. Bob Cryer: I should like to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, on the statutory instrument which was not considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and which many regard as a snoopers' charter. Many hon. Members will have a financial advantage if the poll tax and the related delegated legislation is brought into operation. Would there be a direct pecuniary interest to Conservative

Scottish Members—handful of them that there are—if they voted for the statutory instrument? It would be worthwhile if you, Mr. Speaker, examined this matter to see whether they can vote for it.

Mr. Speaker: It is perfectly in order for hon. Members to cast a vote where it is a matter of public policy, as this would be.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order.

Mr. Skinner: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Because there is a timetable motion, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may wish to take part in the debate on the Education Reform Bill. The House might benefit from his speech.

BILL PRESENTED

NORTHERN IRELAND (TERMINATION OF JURISDICTION)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Bob Clay, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. John Hughes, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Max Madden and Mr. Bernie Grant, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the termination of Her Majesty's jurisdiction in Northern Ireland: and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Value Added Tax (Confectionery) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 507), be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Orders of the Day — Education Reform Bill

4TH ALLOTTED DAY

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 135

ABOLITION OF ILEA

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 375, in page 127, line 26, leave out 'On 1st April 1990', and insert
`The Secretary of State shall secure a review of the Inner London Education Authority to be undertaken in pursuance of section 22(2) of the Local Government Act 1985, and on a date not less than two years after the conclusion of that review the Secretary of State may by affirmative order provide that'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 499, in clause 136, in page 127, line 32, at beginning insert—
'Subject to the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) below'.
No. 356, in page 127, line 32, after 'date', insert
'subject to subsections (3) and (4) below'.
No. 357, in page 127, line 38, at end add—
'(3) The Secretary of State may by Order, which shall be subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, designate two or more inner London councils as a single education authority, to which references in this or other Acts shall apply as in subsection (1) above.'.
No. 358, in page 127, line 38, at end add—
'(4) The Secretary of State may make an Order, subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which—

(a) may designate any former function of the inner London Education Authority which shall be discharged by a body, other than an inner London council or an education authority established by virtue of subsection (3) above;

No. 500, in page 127, line 38, at end insert—
'(3) Before the abolition date, the Secretary of State shall review development plans published in accordance with the provisions of section 138 of this Act and any other evidence or representations he considers approriate (including, in particular, reviews of matters relating to—

(a) special educational needs; and
(b) further and continuing education,

in the Inner London Education Area).
(4) If it appears to the Secretary of State in the case of any one or more inner London councils that all or any of those councils could with advantage make joint arrangements for the discharge of all or any of the functions of a local education authority, he shall by order under Part II of Schedule 1 of the 1944 Act establish for the whole or any part of the Inner London Education area a joint committee for the purpose of exercising such functions as he may prescribe accordingly.'.
No. 504, in clause 138, in page 129, line 3, at end insert
'(5A) An Inner London council shall, in preparing a development plan under this section, ensure that there is adequate financial support for the effective running and management of each of the following—

(a) the teaching of mother-tongue or community languages,
(b) the teaching of English as a second language,
(c) holiday play schemes,
(d) supplementary schools,
(e) the Education Liaison Service, and

(f) access courses leading to higher and further education.'.

No. 501, in clause 143, in page 133, line 16, at end insert
'provided that for the purposes of an order made under this section, when a school is designated by an order made under section 139 (so that an inner London council has a duty to maintain a school previously maintained by the LEA) the persons employed at that school shall be regarded as members of one class or description of employees'.

Mr. Straw: The amendment raises the crucial issue of whether the abolition of ILEA should take place on 1 April 1990 with no serious study or review, or whether a review should take place first. Before I deal with that, I want to place on record my great regret that the Secretary of State is unwilling to reply to this debate. He is here, but he is putting up the Minister of State to reply—and I mean her no disrespect by saying that. It has been crystal clear throughout that this is a crucial matter that is central to the Government's and the Secretary of State's reputation and he should have had the guts to reply to the debate on it.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Gentleman knows that Mr. Speaker has selected six groups of amendments for debate and I shall reply to at least two of them—provided that we get to them, which we should be able to do. I have every confidence that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to reply.
If the hon. Gentleman wants my reply to the amendment, let me say that we are wholly opposed to it. It will only lead to delay, which is not good for the interests of the children of London. The greatest service he can do is to encourage the London Labour boroughs to start planning for taking over their children's education on 1 April 1990, which is what the Conservative boroughs and Tower Hamlets are doing.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but it does not lie in his mouth to suggest that we can get on to debate the second and third groupings when he guillotined the Bill ruthlessly so that we are likely to be able to discuss only the first group, as he knew all along. He also well knows that we have the interests of the children of London at heart, which is why we are proposing a review first.
There have been two major reviews of ILEA's work under this Administration — one in 1980 and one in 1984. The one in 1980 was prompted by the findings of a committee of which the Secretary of State, then a Back Bencher, was chairman. The then Secretary of State, Lord Carlisle, with the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors before him, came to the House on 4 February 1981 to announce the conclusion of the review in these terms:
the overriding factors are educational and financial. The weight of educational opinion, including the voluntary bodies and the churches, is that the problems of inner London call for a single authority of adequate size and with adequate resources to administer its schools as well as further and higher education, and the careers service; and that responsibility for the schools should not be separated from the rest of education. The Government share that view." —[Official Report, 4 February 1981; Vol. 998 c. 296.]
A further review was conducted alongside the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" in 1983–84.
I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) here—

Mr. Tony Banks: Why?

Mr. Straw: Because I can address some of my remarks to him. His presence shows at least some token concern for the education of London's children; but the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) is absent—

Mr. Banks: Because the sun is still up; he is waiting for it to go down.

Mr. Straw: In any case, his absence shows the cavalier manner in which he regards the future of inner London.
The right hon. Member for Henley broke the 30-year Cabinet rule and told us that only five years ago — I hope that the Attorney-General has noted his indiscretion and that summonses under the Official Secrets Act will follow, under section 2 if not section 1 — he argued strongly within the Cabinet in 1983–84 in the run-up to the general election for the break-up of ILEA. Sad to relate, from his point of view, he failed in that, and the break-up was not included in the 1983 manifesto. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman went on arguing for the break-up of ILEA after 1983—but still failed.
We had a number of arguments with Lord Joseph, but never doubted his concern about the education of our children. He said to the House:
Those whom we consulted, in particular those Members of the House and others with a close understanding of the needs of education in inner London, were overwhelmingly in favour of a directly elected authority. We have been persuaded by their arguments. The nature, the scale and importance of the education service in inner London, taken together, justify a directly elected authority in this special casc."—[Official Report, 5 April 1984; Vol. 57, c. 1124.]
I understand that the consolation prize for the right hon. Member for Henley was that a power of review should be written into the Local Government Bill so that there could be a facility for abolishing ILEA by order, if the Government came to that conclusion, after about five years. If at any stage I have the chronology, the history or the facts wrong, I shall give way to the former Secretary of State so that he can give away some more official secrets.
The power to abolish ILEA by order was overturned by the House of Lords in mid-1985 and the matter came back to this House. May God please preserve the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the longest serving junior Minister in this Administration. So pleased have we been with his comments that we are forming a Bob Dunn preservation society, because every time he speaks he makes our case. He said:
The strongest objection to clause 21"—
as it then was—
has been to the proposal that there should be a power for my right hon. Friend to reallocate the new ILEA's functions by order. We have been convinced by those arguments." —[Official Report, 8 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 817.]
It is interesting to look back at the history of that period to see what became of section 22 of the 1985 Act. Right from the start everyone in the Government accepted that before ILEA was broken up there had to be a review. That was written into the original legislation and was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I understand that it was also accepted by the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford and by the Prime Minister. Indeed, it was about the only matter on which those four right hon. Members agreed. All four of them knew that before there

was any serious change to the structure of an organisation as complex and important as ILEA there had to be a review.
There has been some reference to well-wishers who keep sending me plain sealed envelopes containing information about what goes on in the Government or in the Conservative party. I shall come to the latest brown envelope that I have received.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The hon. Gentleman should not encourage public servants to break the law.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should be careful in his allegation.
I have yet to receive a white envelope containing details of exactly what the Secretary of State said to "E(EP)", the Cabinet Sub-Committee that deals with all these matters, when he was faced with the efforts by the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford who were trying to railroad him into breaking up ILEA against his will. I understand, and I am certainly open to correction, that even at that stage the Secretary of State argued quite strongly against those two right hon. Gentlemen and said that there should be a review. I see that the Secretary of State is smiling like a Cheshire cat. If I am wrong, I shall give way so that the right hon. Gentleman can correct me and tell me exactly what other arguments he used against the two right hon. Gentlemen. We know, because we were able to observe it, that during the weeks when the Government were deciding whether to accept his advice or theirs he was walking around looking as black as thunder because he knew, and we knew, that he was being rolled over.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: There was an argument at the time, and it was that we should make a success of getting rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties before dealing with ILEA. Now that we have made a triumphant success of getting rid of the GLC and the metropolitan counties, there seems to be an overwhelming case for saying that ILEA should go the same way.

Mr. Straw: That was not the argument that convinced the Secretary of State or the right hon. Gentleman, the chairman of the Conservative party, because only nine months ago in the Conservative manifesto they put forward quite a different proposition. As I understand it, the right hon. Member for Henley was a party to the decision in 1983–84 that there had to be a review of ILEA before any decision was made about its abolition. If I am wrong about that, I shall give way again to the right hon. Member for Henley. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to hide behind jokes and trivialities to mask the fact that he and the Government have gone back on their word.
In order to reinforce the point that the Secretary of State was rolled over, I can tell the House that I had never seen him as uncomfortable as when he made his statement to the House on 4 February. He was trying to explain that black was white, and that a manifesto commitment that he had written and the right hon. Member for Chingford had endorsed, to keep ILEA intact, with at most three boroughs and the City of London withdrawing, was the same as the manifesto commitment to destroy it altogether.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Where in the Conservative party manifesto was there an undertaking that ILEA would be kept intact and only three boroughs would be allowed to withdraw? The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he cannot conceive that anybody's second thoughts would be better than his first. In his case, his third, fourth and fifth thoughts would be better than the one he is putting forward now.

Mr. Straw: The Conservative party manifesto said:
In the area covered by the Inner London Education Authority, where entire borough councils wish to become independent of the LEA, they will Be able to submit proposals to the Secretary of State requesting permission to take over the provision of education within their boundaries.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman said that there was an undertaking that ILEA would not be dismantled. There was a proposition, which has now been improved, that it should be dismantled. That is the fact.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. First, he said that this was a second thought, suggesting a complete change of policy. Now he is saying that it was a manifesto commitment, and the new policy is an improvement. He knows that there is not a word in the manifesto about the abolition of ILEA. He also knows that only three Conservative boroughs and the City of London, and possibly Tower Hamlets—I see the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) shaking his head, and he knows the Liberals in Tower Hamlets better than I do. The right hon. Member for Chingford knew the reality at the time of the general election, and he knew it when he put forward the amendment in the form of an early-day motion. If he thought that the manifesto was the mechanism for breaking up ILEA, why did he bother to have second thoughts and try to force on the Secretary of State an about-turn of policy?

Mr. Simon Hughes: To set the record straight, I should inform the hon. Gentleman that the view of Tower Hamlets council has always been that it opposes the abolition of ILEA. If ILEA were to be broken up, as was the original Tory proposal, it was considering what it should do. It never reached a conclusion because it never had time to do so, and it is opposed to the present proposal as much as any other borough in inner London that is not run by the Tories.

Mr. Straw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation.

Mr. Tebbit: Let me get back to the point. The hon. Gentleman claimed that there was an undertaking in the manifesto that what is being done in the Bill would not be done. He has to face the fact that no such undertaking was given. If he would come clean and not overstate his argument, he might do a lot better.

Mr. Straw: It is nice to know that the right hon. Gentleman now presents himself as Mr. Clean. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed for himself many reputations, but being Mr. Clean is not one of them. The phrase I used was that a manifesto commitment that he had written would result in ILEA being kept intact. On the basis of what was written in the manifesto—and he knows the words as well as I do—that was an entirely reasonable inference to draw. Not more than three boroughs would

have withdrawn. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his confirmation that these were indeed second thoughts, and a major change of policy.
The fact that the Secretary of State was rolled over by the right hon. Members for Chingford and Henley is crystal clear from the information that I have been sent by well-wishers. There was first the report of Mr. Eric Bolton, the chief inspector, who wholly rebutted the claim that ILEA had not improved. That claim has been central to the argument for abolition without review. The Secretary of State knows that Mr. Bolton's minute, which was attached to the paper that no doubt went to "E(EP)"., in which the Secretary of State argued for the review of ILEA and not for its break-up, praised four out of seven ILEA services and said that two were around the average. It was critical about secondary schools, but went on to say:
Whatever its previous shortcomings, over the past two or three years there has been a marked move towards the improvement of quality, notably through an increase in inspection and in school improvement strategies, arising from the findings of inspection, as well as from the policies of the authority. In fact, there are clear signs that the findings of inspection are beginning to have an influence on the formulation of policy in the Inner London Education Authority.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman says that ILEA has improved in recent years. Does he accept that, whatever improvements have taken place, it is still almost bottom of the league?

4 pm

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that. We have had many debates about the performance of ILEA. I can claim to have some knowledge of ILEA, both as a member and as a consumer. It is a good authority. Even the Secretary of State had to correct himself when he claimed that its results were bottom of the league. He had to admit that there were about 12 authorities below it. Given the socioeconomic background of the children, both the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State know that ILEA's results are about the same as those for Oxfordshire and better than those for the borough of Waltham Forest, when it was Conservative-controlled.

Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
The remarks of the chief inspector suggested that ILEA was improving and thus emphasise the Secretary of State's discomfort that the abolition of ILEA was forced upon him without a review. The Secretary of State and his political advisers have sought to brief Conservative Members about the fact that abolition could go ahead without review. I have no doubt that the series of questions and answers written at the Department of Education and Science and put out by Conservative central office to explain away those second thoughts—which, according to the Secretary of State, are first thoughts slightly changed—were written with the intention that no one should be convinced by them.
That series of questions and answers is very defensive. Question one asks:
Doesn't the announcement that ILEA is to be abolished mean a complete change of policy?
The right hon. Member for Chingford says that the answer is yes and that it shows second thoughts. The Secretary of State says that that is not the case. That is another


indication of division. How can the Government abolish ILEA if the matter was not put to the electorate in the 1987 manifesto?
Question seven reflects the second thoughts in the minds of the drafters at Conservative central office and in the Department of Education and Science. Question seven asks:
Why abolish the ILEA without first having a review under section 22 of the Local Government Act 1985?
The answer states:
There have been a long series of such reviews, but these have not resulted in any noticeable improvement in the ILEA's educational or financial performance. There is no reason to believe that a new review would be any more successful in raising standards in the future. On the contrary, it would merely postpone a positive decision, leaving the current climate of uncertainty.
I have dealt with the issue whether there has been an improvement. The Secretary of State was so angry about the leaking of Mr. Bolton's minute because it gave the game away and showed that there has been an improvement in ILEA's secondary school system and that four of the other seven services were among the best in the country. I asked the obvious question—whether it was correct that there had been a long series of reviews such as that anticipated by section 22 of the Local Government Act 1985. It took the Secretary of State 10 days to answer that simple question and I received the answer only this morning.
The Secretary of State mentioned two internal Government reviews, both of which I have referred to and both of which concluded that ILEA should remain intact. He then mentioned five other reviews. Only one review, the one that he wrote himself in 1985, said that ILEA should go. He has changed his mind since then; Lord Carlisle changed it for him.
I was referred finally to a document produced by the Centre for Policy Studies entitled "The Inner London Education Authority After the Abolition of the Greater London Council", published in 1983. Conservative Members, particularly those on the Right of the party, know about the Centre for Policy Studies because it provides them with the way, the truth and the light. My heart sank when I borrowed that from the Library and saw that it was written by John McIntosh, Fred Naylor and Laurence Norcross. However, this review, the last carried out by the Government, concludes:
Although we have considered the solutions put forward by Mr. Kenneth Baker and Sir Frank Marshall, we do believe there are some powerful arguments for retaining broadly the present administrative structure of the ILEA.
The review goes on to recommend a directly elected authority and says that there should be direct elections. The authors of the report got their way because they persuaded Lord Joseph to go down that road.
Finally, in case the Secretary of State says, "Oh well, that was in 1983", the report goes on to say:
The reform which we are advocating should be subject to review aften ten years.
Even those three ideologues on the Right of the Tory party understood that the reforms had to take time before they could bear fruit.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the important issues which ILEA has not faced — the constantly neglected need to go for

higher expectations of its pupils, as many pupils fail to have high expectations, and its failure to relocate staff on the scale required?

Mr. Straw: I am not so pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman about teachers in London and pupil expectations, but I accept that there is a problem, not just in London but in many inner city areas. There is a vicious circle regarding teachers' expectations of their lower-achieving pupils. That is not surprising, given that over the past eight years the economic prospects of children emerging from school with either low or no examination results have been very low. The blame for that lies not with us, but with the Government. The last way to raise standards in inner London is to put ILEA and the education of inner London children through the disruption which is bound to be faced over the next 18 months or two years, if the proposal to break up ILEA is approved by the House.

Mr. Tracey: I wish to bring the hon. Gentleman to the core of the point. He has been arguing about whether the manifesto should stand firm and boroughs should opt out, or whether ILEA should be abolished at a stroke. Presumably he accepts that the manifesto commitment was perfectly valid and received an overwhelming mandate. Would he prefer to see ILEA wither on the branch as boroughs opt out? Undoubtedly more than the three or four that made it clear that they would opt out would have done so. The Labour boroughs would have opted out and ILEA would have withered on the branch. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, Lady Blackstone, has advised against that and surely he does not want to see that. That is why the Government have taken those steps.

Mr. Straw: I knew that I was right in hesitating to give way to the hon. Gentleman. As both my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) have said, Lady Blackstone did not say that. The hon. Gentleman knows that. Lady Blackstone and the Labour party believe that ILEA should not be broken up. We are not going to offer the hon. Gentleman and his party advice on the best method of executing an institution that we hold dear.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman has given us an interesting review of the reviews. He has said nothing new today. Everything that he has said has been on the record and has been known for some time. One of the little ironies of his review of the reviews was that he quoted from a 1983 Centre for Policy Studies pamphlet and, as a result, managed to cast my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as being against Right-wing ideologues and pictured them, as they are correctly presented in public life, as the moderates in this matter.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the review by the senior chief inspector reflected real concern about standards in secondary schools in ILEA. There has been no progress in improving value for money in ILEA. It is still the largest spending authority. Many other authorities are concerned that so much money is being spent. In the manifesto that the hon. Gentleman read out we clearly signalled a change of policy. My right hon. Friend Lord Joseph went for a unitary authority, but in our manifesto we signalled the end of that by allowing London boroughs to opt out. We are building upon that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to my statement—[HON MEMBERS: "Come on."] Well, the hon. Gentleman wanted me to debate with him and I am happy to do so. He referred to my statement on 4 February and he said that it was unconvincing. What was unconvincing about the hour of that statement was that, the longer it went on, more and more Labour Members left the Chamber. By the end of the statement there were fewer Labour Members in the Chamber than there are even now. That shows the concern of the Labour party.

Mr. Straw: I notice that the Secretary of State was looking over his shoulder—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mr. Two Per Cent.

Mr. Straw: I shall come in a moment to the unhappy news from the weekend polls.
I forgot to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey). It is well known that ILEA has had difficulties with the reallocation of teachers, but that problem has been dealt with, I accept with difficulty, but with great firmness by the current leadership of ILEA. It lies least of all in the mouth of the Secretary of State to complain about spending. It is he who has controlled its level of spending and manpower over the past five years. He endorsed that spending, yet he could have cut it at any stage. We have heard before the weasel-words about the change being signalled in the manifesto.lf an engine driver had been following that signal he would have crashed straight into the buffers. That is where the Secretary of State will end up.
The most significant thing about the reply that I received from the Secretary of State this morning is that there has not been a review by the Government or by the Centre for Policy Studies, which stands behind the Government these days, in the past five years. In 1983 the decision was made to abolish the GLC, but to keep ILEA intact. That illustrates that the Secretary of State's claims are threadbare and how unconvinced he is about the case for the wanton break-up of ILEA.
I believe that the Secretary of State is aware that the break-up of ILEA will damage not only London's children, but his reputation. The fact that it will damage his reputation is one of the few things about which he and the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley agree. I am distressed because the Secretary of State should take advice about his future political decisions from his true friends, from people such as myself. He may have forgotten that on 1 February, during the guillotine debate, I said:
So I was distressed to read in the papers at the weekend"—this was six weeks ago—
that the odds on the Secretary of State in the Conservative leadership stakes have lengthened slightly as a result of his performance. That is a matter that causes me considerable distress. As I have told him, our interest, apart from trying to defeat the Bill, is to ensure that he remains upright when the leadership contest takes place." —[Official Report, 1 February 1988; Vol. 126, c. 760.]
That was before the Secretary of State was mugged by the two political hooligans.

Mr. Heseltine: Before the hon. Gentleman seeks an opportunity to get away from the substance of the case and therefore reveals the paucity of his arguments, will he explain how this trivial diversion equates with the fact that two prominent members of his party are now trying to destroy his party's leadership?

Mr. Straw: That is a diversion if ever there was one.
What I am talking about is central to the issue because we all know that the reason why ILEA is now to be broken up has nothing to do with the future of London's children, but everything to do with the squalid argument between the Secretary of State and the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley about the future of the Tory party.
4.15 pm
Today is the 20th anniversary of the Secretary of State's election to this House—he won a by-election in Acton. Has he had a card from the right hon. Members for Chingford and Henley?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The fact that I have not had a card is obviously due to the fact that my right hon. Friends could not remember that notable day. I am sure that I shall receive their congratulations later in the Smoking Room over a drink.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State will need more than a drink. I have already said that, second only to defeating this Bill, I am concerned about the Secretary of State's future. Yesterday I opened my copy of The Observer, and saw something about a "Tory hero". I expected to see the name "Baker" at the top, but instead it said "Heseltine". It said that, according to an opinion poll, 17 per cent. of voters would prefer him to succeed the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister. The article went on to say:
Among Conservative voters, however, Mr. Tebbit is preferred as successor (22 per cent.) against Mr. Heseltines 16 per cent.".

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has this anything to do with the matter that we are supposed to be discussing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that both Front Benches will set a good example by speaking to the amendments before the House.

Mr. Straw: It has everything to do with the debate because the changes before us have arisen as a result of the competition for the Tory leadership between the right hon. Members for Henley and for Mole Valley (M r. Baker).
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the right hon. Member for Henley, and, according to The Observer article, he has the support of 17 per cent. and the right hon. Member for Chingford has the support of 22 per cent. of Tory voters. It appears that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the support of 8 per cent. and the Secretary of State for Energy 6 per cent. I asked myself, where is my hero, the Secretary of State for Education? The Secretary of State for Wales had 3 per cent. support and below him was my hero, the Secretary of State for Education, with 2 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am going to see my doctor after this because I am so distressed.
The case for the review, as agreed in 1983—

Mr. Tebbit: In this interlude of frivolity the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the popularity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and myself has gone up, remarkably, ever since we became associated with the abolition of ILEA. In those circumstances, knowing that the hon. Gentleman is extremely ambitious, I suggest that he joins in and does himself a bit of good.

Mr. Straw: That is an interesting idea. Where does that leave Mr. Two Per Cent.? The Secretary of State keeps telling us that he agrees with the right hon. Member for Chingford, but his support has gone down to 2 per cent.
I believe that there should be a review because, as Lord Joseph said, ILEA is unique, it has a small geographical area, and its services have developed without reference to borough boundaries. He also said that it was unique because of its immense good work in careers, adult education, further education and the London compact. All of those things will be put at risk because of the ad hoc, rapid changeover that will take place without review.
If there was a review, however, it could take into account the views of teachers, head teachers and parents. The Secretary of State may dismiss the interests of teachers as though they do not matter. I believe that they matter greatly. The Secretary of State keeps telling us that the views of the head teachers are of crucial importance. In a survey conducted by Mass Observation, published today, nine out of 10 head teachers in inner London oppose the break-up of ILEA and believe that it will result in a lower rather than a higher standard of education.
The next issue concerns parents. No man has made more of parents and their interests when it suited him than the Secretary of State. However, we have learnt that parents' interests are to be discarded whenever their conclusions differ from those of the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State made much of a by-election that took place in Wandsworth last November, just before the Education Reform Bill was presented. The issue then was not the break-up of ILEA, but the withdrawal of individual boroughs from ILEA. He suggested that that was a mandate for this policy. However, it was not a mandate for this policy because the policy did not even exist. The second thoughts had not been thought.
It is fascinating to consider the election literature issued by the Conservative party at the time of that by-election. That literature states:
The facts about consultation are these. It is however for the people of Wandsworth to decide with particular reference to parental views.
The Conservatives in central Government have an opportunity to implement what the Conservatives in Wandsworth have a mandate for, and that is to consult parents. At the moment a parents' ballot is being conducted across London. London parents have raised £80,000 to pay for the ballot. It is a testament to the feelings of parents of all shades of opinion and none that they have been able to devote voluntary energies and fund raising to get the ballot off the ground.
I do not know what results will flow from the ballot. I only know how I voted in it as a London parent. However, I received some information today in the form of a letter from Conservative central office. That letter was sent by Mr. David Simpson to Members of Parliament and others for the use either of Conservative speakers or people dealing with the press. The letter reveals that Conservative central office believes that the ballot will result in an overwhelming victory for ILEA in the form of an overwhelming "No" vote. Central office is now trying to set up disgraceful and discreditable alibis to rubbish the ballot's result.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
No doubt the Secretary of State, who is burying himself in his papers, has seen this document. Indeed, the Minister of State must have seen it as well. I hope that they will wholly disown it. It states:
It is claimed that the poll will give a valid reflection of parents' views. In fact, the result is bound to be distorted for the following reasons:
(a.) Schools have been flooded by propaganda hostile to the Education Reform Bill and this has been paid for by the ratepayers since it represents the official view of ILEA.
It hardly lies in the mouth of the Secretary of State or members of the Conservative party to complain about flooding schools with propaganda when a head teacher cannot open his or her mail on any day of the week without finding another glossy pamphlet from the Secretary of State. Indeed, people visiting the Ideal Home exhibition to buy a new washing machine are bombarded by 24 video screens showing the Secretary of State trying to sell his wares.
I hope that my hon. Friends will note these next comments very carefully. The document continues:
Where a child has two parents … ILEA is permitting only one vote. This obviously discriminates in favour of one-parent families.
What a disgraceful notion. It also shows that Tory central office believes that the ballot is being run by ILEA. In fact, it is being run by the independent London Parents Action Group.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No; sit down.
The document continues:
It is claimed that the poll will be honest and above board since it is being conducted by the Electoral Reform Society. In fact, the method of organising the poll provides opportunity for ballot rigging on a considerable scale.
That is a wholly disgraceful allegation for Conservative central office or Ministers to make against the Electoral Reform Society and the independent, apolitical, nonpolitical London Parents Action Group. I ask the Secretary of State now to disown the quite scandalous and scurrilous claims made by the Conservative central office that there will be ballot rigging in the ballot.
The independent London Parents Action Group has raised £80,000 precisely to ensure that the ballot can be conducted with scrupulous rules by the Electoral Reform Society. If the Secretary of State is complaining about that, let him put up the money for the ballot in the same way that he is to put up money for ballots for grant-maintained schools. Come on, let us hear from the Secretary of State.
The simple fact is that the Tories are scared of a ballot of parents in inner London because they know what the result is likely to be. They are afraid of the truth and they are afraid that the result is likely to be a resounding rejection of their policies.

Mr. Tony Banks: They are not just afraid of the truth; they are contemptuous of it. They know very well that if the ballot went ahead it would show a complete rejection of their proposals for the abolition of ILEA. We should never believe a word that the Government say when they talk about democracy. They are hypocrites and liars.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government are not only contemptuous of us; they are contemptuous of the electors of London and of people like the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, received a petition today from 20,000 parents


from just three boroughs — Hackney, Islington and Wandsworth — which will be presented to the House. Indeed, many more thousands of signatures will be added to petitions. The Secretary of State preaches parent power and parent participation. However, the moment that they are inconvenient to his ambitions or the views of the real Secretaries of State—the terrible twins the right hon. Members for Henley and for Chingford — he ignores them.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the objections that parents made this morning when they came to see the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden) and myself was that the Secretary of State, unlike his predecessor Lord Joseph, had refused to see parent governors or the parents' consultative committee, and the Secretary of State's argument for not seeing them was that they might put forward views with which he disagreed?

Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend. What he says leads me to another reason for a review of inner London's education before we abolish ILEA. The Secretary of State must be able to find out about London's education for himself. He has received the chief inspector's report which concludes fundamentally that there is no case for abolition.

Mr. David Madel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No.
The most scandalous part of the Secretary of State's record is that, during the whole two years that he has been Secretary of State, he has visited just one school in the Inner London education authority, and that was a voluntary aided school. He has not visited any of the schools about which he is so critical. No wonder he is Mr. Two Per Cent. If there is a review, the Secretary of State can visit schools and learn about the realities of London's education.
The present policy to break up ILEA in this way is a consequence not of concern for the future of London's 270,000 children, but of the crude internal politics of the Tory party. We are all aware of that, and the Secretary of State knows it as well. However, he should also be aware of his duty by law as the holder of his high office to promote the education of the people and to secure a varied and comprehensive service in every area. He fails in that duty unless for once he and the Government think before they act.

Mr. Harry Greenway: The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to abolish ILEA has stirred my memories. I worked for the London county council education committee for three years and for ILEA for 20 years. I reckon to know ILEA better than almost anyone because I have worked for it from so many angles. I remain president of two organisations concerned with sporting aspects of schools throughout ILEA and beyond it. I regularly enter ILEA schools and meet teachers and head teachers, many of whom are my friends.
The Inner London education authority has much in its favour, but there are substantial points against it. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who replied to my intervention, did not face up to ILEA's failure over many years to relocate teaching staff. For five or six years ILEA

should have had a great deal more courage and relocated several thousand teaching staff from highly favoured schools with pupil-teacher ratios as low as 8 : 1 to other schools, notably Church schools, which have never been favoured by ILEA or its predecessor, where pupil-teacher ratios were much inferior to their county school counterparts.
I remember with sadness and concern the vindictive attitude taken by ILEA to Church schools. That attitude goes back to the days of Mrs. Chaplin, who did much that was good for education in London. However, on one notable occasion she met the heads of Church schools, and one of them told me that she said "We are going to do you." That is what ILEA proceeded to do. It is to the eternal shame of the authority that it has not supported Church schools. Indeed, it has taken every opportunity available to it to favour county schools against Church schools. It has failed also to have a substantial religious education policy in its schools. Instead, it has opted for a broad syllabus that has lacked substance.

Mr. Chris Smith: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that ILEA does not support Church schools. On the contrary, it is extremely supportive of Church schools of both denominations. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, he should consult Church authorities.

Mr. Greenway: I think that the hon. Gentleman should meet Mrs. Chaplin, who formerly represented the area with which he is so familiar. If he does so, he will improve his political education.
I have criticisms of ILEA but I have much to say in its favour. I believe that there is enough responsibility within the authority for it to do its duty and to accept the verdict of the House of Commons today. I am certain that the House will decide that the authority should be abolished—

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Greenway: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own contribution to the debate.
I hope that ILEA, with the London boroughs, will prepare for the future education of children in inner London. It is imperative that it talks to the boroughs about its powers and responsibilities for many schools, which will be devolved in about two years' time. If it fails to do so, that will be its most significant and serious failure for London's children. I charge it with the duty of entering into discussions with the boroughs.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take account of the valuable work that ILEA continues to perform in adult education. I hope also that the Government will consider preserving the adult education service as a cross-borough service, or will ensure at least that there is substantial inter-borough cooperation on adult education. Similarly, we shall need inter-borough co-operation on special needs education after the abolition of ILEA. Boroughs cannot act alone in providing that education. Throughout London there are units providing education for delicate children, children with partial hearing and maladjusted children, for example, and these responsibilities cannot easily be


devolved to individual boroughs. If there is such devolution, it must be written into the Bill. It must be understood clearly that where a special school has accepted children from throughout ILEA, and sometimes outside it, it will be enabled so to continue.
The success of ILEA in providing sports facilities for children has been significant and important. Children in inner-city areas need a window on the countryside, on some grass and plenty of physical activity. I hope that there will be co-operation across London in the provision of sports facilities. I am the president of the London Schoolboys' Hockey Association, which has affiliated to it schools throughout London. Playing fields are littered about London and it would not be easy properly to provide playing fields for individual boroughs.

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman is advancing some good arguments. Has he put them to the Secretary of State? If so, what was the right hon. Gentleman's response?

Mr. Greenway: I have advanced these arguments and I know that my right hon. Friend is considering them. I am putting them on the record because I consider them to be important.
About 24 years ago I founded a scheme to enable children from special schools and ordinary schools to have lessons in horse-riding and stable management. The scheme has benefited many children enormously. Many an autistic child who has found difficulty in learning to speak or accepting the need to socialise, along with all the other difficulties that such children have, has become a new being while learning to ride on the back of a pony and learning how to care for it. It is to the great credit of the London county council, as it was, and ILEA that they chose to support the scheme. It would be a tragedy if that sort of scheme were to be lost with the disappearance of ILEA.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I know many teachers who knew the hon. Gentleman when he was a member of the teaching profession, and I know that he was deeply respected. He knows as well as I do that music is one of the most important features of education. He knows also that ILEA is admired throughout the country for its attitude to music education. The life of any school is lacking if music is not a feature of it. ILEA has a lively musical life and in Pimlico, for example, there is a music centre and a lively youth orchestra. I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek an assurance from his right hon. and hon. Friends that that approach to music throughout the area for which ILEA is responsible will be continued by the boroughs by means of a joint approach.

Mr. Greenway: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already given such assurances.
I was dealing with sport, which is one of the three cross-borough activities that I wish to see continue after the abolition of ILEA. I have mentioned especially horse-riding for disabled and ordinary children. Every child can benefit from horse-riding and learning to care for horses. There have been CSE courses on riding and caring for horses and I understand that these will be developed as GCSE courses.
It is necessary to consider the shortcomings of ILEA, which have ultimately undermined its successes. It has

been wrong of ILEA not to have a high expectation of all children. It has failed seriously the children of single-parent families and many children of ethnic minority families. This is not because it has failed to show a heart or because it has chosen not to care for these children. In effect, ILEA has said, "This child is an orphan and we cannot expect too much of it. This child has a difficult background and this child has an ethnic minority background. We cannot expect too much of these children." I never knew my father. He died when I was one year old. That has been on of the sadnesses of my life. When I was a little boy I was told that I had to work twice as hard as everybody else because I did not have a father. I was not told that there was no need for me to do anything because I did not have a father and therefore society would look after me. Many children have been let down by ILEA's approach to children with difficulties. My right hon. Friend has picked that up, and he was right to do so.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sorry to see the right hon. Members for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) walking out, because I feel that they should listen to my remarks. By not listening, they show their contempt for debate in the House. They seek support from Conservative Members, and walk out when a case for the retention of ILEA is to be made. That reflects their personalities.
I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). He and I have a number of experiences in common, most of them relating to being professional teachers in the employ of either the London county council or ILEA. I must make that declaration of interest. For 14 years, my three children went to ILEA schools, and close relatives of mine are employed by ILEA. My children are benefitting or have benefited from ILEA further education grants. That is typical of many citizens of this country, and it is not the usual kind of financial interest declared by hon. Members.
I agree with much of the spirit of what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. His conclusions are in favour of the amendments selected—but probably not taken—in my name. I must, however, contest what he said about church schools. I have a circular from the London Diocesan Board for Schools at 30 Causton street, headed "The future of the ILEA," and dated 13 February 1988. The second paragraph states:
The reasons for keeping a unitary education authority far outweigh the reasons for abolishing it, as can be seen in this paper.
There follow no fewer than 13 reasons why the unitary education authority should be retained.
Of course, ILEA is not without fault. Councillors in the past may have said things with which the hon. Member for Ealing, North did not agree. I knew the lady to whom he referred, Mrs. Ena Chaplin. She contributed much to the education scene in London. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding. But the fact that I disagreed with some of ILEA's actions, both past and present, does not mean that the statutory and administrative structure of any unitary education authority in London should be destroyed, whether it is dominated by the Conservative or the Labour party. It does not mean that if an authority is falling short of expectations, we should do away with it. The right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley, who walked out — the parliamentary cowards who are not listening to the debate—would have us, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State decide that, because it is felt that the


goods are not being delivered, the factory should be destroyed. The obvious course is to adjust, rather than destroy, the factory.
My amendments do not negate the destruction of the factory; they suggest that it should not be split into 32 different bits by statute. Amendment No. 356 reads :
Page 127, line 32 [Clause 1361], after 'date', insert 'subject to subsections (3) and (4) below'.
Subsection (3) reads:
The Secretary of State may by Order, which shall be subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, designate two or more inner London councils as a single education authority, to which references in this or other Acts shall apply as in subsection (1) above.
Subsection (4) reads:
The Secretary of State may make an Order, subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which—

(a) may designate any former function of the Inner London Education Authority which shall be discharged by a body, other than an inner London council or an education authority established by virtue of subsection (3) above."

The amendments would give the Secretary of State an optional flexibility. The present rigidity in the Bill is that, irrespective of size and current provision, each London borough shall be an education authority under the Education Acts. We all know the difficulties inherent in that. The Secretary of State has said, "Ah, well, we shall set up some joint authorities under the 1944 Act." He said that when he introduced the measure on 4 February, and it was reiterated on 27 February, but it is not in the Bill. It is left to the Secretary of State, on a subsequent date, to do that if he wishes. If the right hon. Gentleman accepted my amendments, they would give him more room for manoeuvre, and much more flexibility to meet the needs of children and teachers in the classroom.
4.45 pm
The Secretary of State has made great play of the suggestion that it is the inability of teachers to deliver the goods that is causing him to introduce these clauses. It is the ability of an education authority to assist the teacher in the classroom that I wish to discuss today. Eighteen years ago, I stepped straight out of the classroom into the House and made my maiden speech as a classroom teacher, and that is how I make my speech now. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) laughs, but it is no laughing matter. Time has gone on. Things were difficult enough then; they must be much more difficult now.
The object of education administration — and the duty of the House—is to give the teacher in the classroom the tools that a professional requires for the job. Without that, the needs of pupils cannot be met. I think that I carry the hon. Member for Ealing, North with me all the way—indeed, I should carry the whole House with me, and certainly the Secretary of State and Education Ministers — because that is the duty of the community to the schools.
I wish to speak on three broad issues, and to wind up with two true stories to illustrate my themes. The first issue is special education, to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North has referred. The second is higher and further education, and the third is sports facilities. Curiously enough, all three were picked out by the hon. Member for Ealing, North. I did not know that he was going to do that.
Special schools were referred to in the debate on 17 February by a number of hon. Members. They were referred to specifically by the Minister of State who, in winding up, said:
Every local education authority is under a duty to secure adequate provision for children with special educational needs. Every local education authority in the country meets that duty by co-operating with other authorities as the hon. Member for Greenwich said. Even the Inner London Education Authority does not and cannot provide every form of specialist provision for every form of handicap." —[Official Report, 17 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 1071.]
I see the Minister nodding. It is here; that is what she said.
Of course, that is true. The point is that the larger the education authority, the more able it is to do that very thing. Conversely, the smaller the education authority—and, in small towns or counties, that is the optimum size —the more difficult it is. In London, for over 100 years we have built up a system of meeting pupils' needs on a unitary basis. There are no fewer than 8,300 statemented children in the ILEA area, of whom no fewer than 6,600 are in special schools. It is a 'very big affair.
The whole of the specialist service for those children costs £50 million a year. Although there is overlap nowadays with statemented children in ordinary schools, the specialist service is almost an education authority in itself. But even that authority has its internal specialists — more than a dozen of them, each with its own particular responsibility: for example, impaired hearing units. There is only one boarding school, one specialist secondary school and two primary schools for the whole of London, and pupils are brought to them by transport. There are those with specific behavioural difficulties, and those who require special services because of various special difficulties, which I have not time to discuss. Nineteen specialities must be considered.
There are but two specialist schools in Westminster while Kensington and Chelsea has none. Clearly, there must be some co-operative arrangement. We have no specific pledge, but my amendments would make it possible for the Secretary of State to designate the whole of the existing ILEA area as a special education authority. Obviously, that is common sense for special education and for further and higher education, to which the hon. Member for Ealing, North referred. ILEA's further and higher education facilities are' enormous. I do not know whether the right hon. Members for Chingford and for Henley know that every week 500,000 people use this further and higher education service, some full-time, some part-time during the day and some at evening classes. The service requires £250 million a year.
Facilities have been built up on a London-wide basis. There are the specialist services for industry and commerce — the national bakery school, at the South Bank polytechnic, the London College of Furniture, the London Printing college, the Westminster Catering college, the London College of Fashion, and so on. There are also the specialist institutions — for example, the 13 building schools throughout London which deal with special city and guilds building crafts. I think of building in particular because that was my specialist provision as a secondary school teacher, but I could continue listing many of the facilities required in London.
There are also the voluntary colleges — Morley college, which is always mentioned, the Central School of Speech and Drama, the Mary Ward centre, the Royal School of Needlework, the Cordwainers college and the


Working Men's college, all of which fit together in a comprehensive service for Londoners. Why should it not be retained as a single, comprehensive service? It could be retained if the Secretary of State accepted my amendments.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is a former Member for the London borough of Ealing. Does he accept that boroughs in outer London are able to cooperate? Residents who live in one borough go to classes in another, which is reimbursed by their borough? As a former resident of the London borough of Ealing, I point out that I never heard the hon. Gentleman make a speech suggesting that the London borough of Ealing was incapable of running its education, so why say that the inner London boroughs are?

Mr. Spearing: I am not saying that they are incapable. It is a matter of whether they are better able to serve the needs of the teachers and pupils in the classroom and of the parents than some modification of the present system. The answer to the question is plainly historical development. Acton, which I had the honour to represent, was a part III authority which ran its own schools, but, as it was not big enough, it became part of Middlesex. The development of education, which is similar to an organic process, depends on commitment.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has a point. Ealing borough council ran a good course for librarians at the Ealing technical college, which is now a polytechnic. That course served not only the rest of London but the whole nation. It developed over time. The point is that the authority was not split up. The Ealing authority was put together from a number of education authorities and worked in its own community. I am speaking purely of the administrative development of the service.
I endorse everything that the hon. Member for Ealing, North said about sports. The playing fields in Ealing serve London pupils. The Oxford-Cambridge boat race is next week, when those crews will row past the swell boathouses of London and Thames and of Putney. They will then pass the Barn Elms boathouse of the Inner London education authority, which was founded by the LCC. There is another boathouse at Clapton, which means that there are just two in London. When I coached at the Barn Elms boathouse, pupils came from all over London. There must be an organisation to keep that system going. The same is true of the riding places, the specialist schools and the groups who sail on the reservoirs. Provision cannot be made overnight. There is no reason why those facilities should not be kept as a unitary system.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if those facilities were lost they would never exist again? They must not be lost.

Mr. Spearing: Yes. We can look at the unitary facilities in the rest of Britain and at the provision in terms of capital, maintenance and skilled staff. There are skilled administrative and coaching systems for sports. The Bill is an anti-sports measure.

Mr. Tracey: Rubbish.

Mr. Spearing: I challenge the hon. Gentleman to look at the record of the LCC and ILEA and their contribution to sport over the past 50 years and then to tell me that I am wrong.

Mr. Chris Smith: I urge my hon. Friend, who has rightly identified ILEA's excellent sports record, not to ignore the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) about ILEA's musical education record. On 17 February 1988, in a letter to The Times, most of the foremost composers and conductors, headed by Sir Michael Tippett, said:
The ILEA justly enjoys an international reputation for the quality of its musical education.
The signatories went on to spell out the fact that good musical education requires, first, funds; secondly, the necessary scale of authority; and, thirdly, a unitary authority to give direction and drive. Will that not go as part of ILEA's abolition?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend reinforces my case. I shall go further: for that reason alone, this is an anti-music Bill— —[Interruption.] Yes, it is an anti-music Bill for London and, as the Minister of State suggested in Committee, it casts doubts on musical education all over Britain, and I challenge the hon. Lady to deny that.

Mr. Sedgemore: Some Conservative Members seemed to snigger when my hon. Friend said that this was an anti-music Bill. Last night, at the Albury theatre, there were many music groups from ILEA, and they all thought that this was an anti-music Bill. Will Conservative Members snigger at that?

Mr. Spearing: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chingford, who is an expert sniggerer, is not present to hear this. If Conservative Members snigger, it illustrates their profound ignorance not only of education as a whole but of ILEA in particular.
I shall conclude with a story which I shall call the Wandsworth incident. I had the privilege to teach in two schools in Wandsworth during my teaching career. My story concerns a specialist service for ILEA—the ILEA careers service—which gave specialist advice which I, as a tutor, could not give to many of my pupils, some of whom could not read and write and others of whom went on to university. I was personally responsible for seeing about 300 of them through school. The incident happened 30 years ago but is up to date because education is far more than regurgitation of facts and testing at particular ages. One cannot test people at particular ages and development, as the Bill tends to assume.
I had a pupil, whom I shall call John Jones, who could not pass examinations. I doubt whether he would have done very well with the GCSE, but there was no doubt that he could not pass the CSE. He was a good lad, who worked hard and was obliging. The careers service did its best for him and asked what I could do. I said that I would write a letter, so I wrote to the effect:
This boy is not able to pass examinations easily and he may not achieve any success in public examinations. However, he has great common sense. He is reliable. He is practical. He is willing to learn, thoroughly honest, tidy and obliging. Any employer will be fortunate having this person in their employment.
He came to me a few weeks later and said, "I shall be away tomorrow morning as I am going for an interview." The next day, after lunch he came back all smiles. I said, "What


happened?" and he said, "I got the job, sir." I said, "What was it?" and he said "Office boy at Conservative central office."

5 pm

Mr. Gerald Bowden: I rise to urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his proposals for the future of ILEA. It gives me no satisfaction to express my opposition, and I am sorry to say that, if there is a vote, I may be in the Lobby voting against him.
I hope that those who have expressed views in support of the many good things that ILEA does will join me in looking for review rather than abolition. It will be little consolation to me if I find myself the only Tory Member supporting socialists of one sort or another asking for these proposals to be looked at. I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider them. As they stand, they are impracticable and unworkable in boroughs such as my own of Southwark.
Southwark is unable to run its housing. That is demonstrated by its rent and rates debts of £30 million. It has no ability to run its social services. That is demonstrated by its scandalous control of the old folk's homes within the borough, one of which has been condemned outright and another three of which are under investigation. In those circumstances, it is utterly irresponsible to require Southwark to take on the education of children within the borough.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look again at the situation and bear in mind many of the points that have been raised in the debate. London-wide services have been built up over 50 or 100 years to serve inner London. If we were to seek to recreate such services today, we could not bring them to their present standard of maturity. I refer particularly to what might be called special, social, sports and informal education. Special education assesses the needs of children who, for one reason or another, do not fit into the normal school system. Adult education makes provision for giving skills and training to those who might have missed out somewhere along the line. At the same time it provides a social education and social contact for those who might not have any immediate connection with their fellow human beings. In that sense it is part of a social service as well as an education service.
We have mentioned, and we shall mention again, the routine, day-to-day adult education classes which bring great comfort, support and help to those who live nearby, and the centres of excellence such as Morley college, the City Literary Institute and others which could not be recreated today. I suggest that they could not survive if the proposals before us go through. It is necessary to find some way to hold them together.
The youth service does so much in social education. ILEA makes a contribution of resources, either in terms of money or professional expertise working alongside and in partnership with the voluntary sector, to make sure that there is provision for those who might otherwise not feel happy or comfortable within the school system but respond to other forms of youth or community work. Only this morning, I had a letter from the chairman of the London Federation of Boys Clubs, who made a great case for the contribution that ILEA makes, financially and professionally, to that organisation in supporting the clubs throughout London. That is likely to disappear if ILEA is abolished.
In addition, to be parochial, in my constituency, Dulwich art gallery, which is a private charitable institution, is a great education resource to school-children throughout London, as are the Horniman museum and the Geffrye museum. ILEA has provided an education officer to help in that museum, who has introduced a most innovative and excellent programme of education for children, getting children into arts galleries to see what is going on and making them feel that it is an exciting, vibrant and living experience. If ILEA were to go, that grant would go, that education officer would go, and the children of Southwark and of south-east London would be deprived.
It is in those areas of education that fall outside the normal run of primary and secondary schooling that the greatest damage will be done. I know that my right hon. Friend wishes to cure some of the ailments that exist within ILEA, but I fear that his proposals are going for overkill. As a result, the ailments might be cured but the patient might expire at the same time.
I believe that we are right to allow those boroughs that wish to opt out to do so. I have made that perfectly clear in all I have said. It was a matter of our manifesto. ILEA is not a perfect organisation. There are many misgivings about its secondary and primary school education. Those boroughs that have shown that they have the competence and confidence to take on education should be allowed to do so. Most of those boroughs have tested that in their own manifestos with their own electorate. It would be wrong to stand in their way and forbid them to opt out if they can do a better job than ILEA can do at the moment. Having said that, we cannot overlook the fact that boroughs such as Southwark do not have that confidence or competence and have made it quite clear that they are unwilling to take over education. In those circumstances, we would be throwing the children in those boroughs to the mercy of who knows what and who knows who.
There is a case for retaining a London-wide residuary body to cover special educational needs, sports and music and such matters which transcend individual borough boundaries. There is need for reform, but it might be possible to reform ILEA to make it a more responsive organisation, strategically capable of planning for the needs of a sector and, at the same time, more alert to the real needs of that sector.
The proposals are not practicable. A practical way to improve them, pragmatically, would be to look at what is left after those boroughs which have chosen to opt out have done so. I suggest that south London, Lambeth, Southwark, Greenwich and Lewisham together form a geographical unit making up a big enough body of schools and pupils to allow planning on a sector-strategic basis. I hesitate to say what that would be called. The South Inner London education authority — or SILEA — is not a happy acronym, but I am sure that another name could be found. There would be a case for allowing those boroughs which individually do not have adequate resources or expertise to work together as one group.
This morning I was impressed by the deputation I received and the petition that was presented to me from three boroughs, amounting to some 20,000 signatures. 1 hear there are more to follow. I hope that other Conservative Members will be prepared to receive such petitions whether or not they initially support them. I put before the House a way in which we can reform ILEA and make this great reform Bill a reformation Bill and not a


revolutionary Bill. ILEA requires an evolutionary review, not a revolution. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider again the proposal that he has put before the House.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the speech made by my parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). We happen to be Members of Parliament for the only borough in London which is represented by all three large parties in the House. The constituency between the hon. Gentleman's and mine is represented by the Labour Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman). It is a telling commentary on the proposals in this part of the Bill that, despite our party differences, the three of us agree that in relation to ILEA the Government are moving in the wrong direction. I know that that view is shared not just by the three of us but across our borough, irrespective of political party. The Under-Secretary of State was a former Southwark councillor and I hope that he will pay particular attention to the views expressed by his parliamentary colleague and in the borough, which is also the London borough that he knows the best.
I do not think that I have ever received as much post on a single issue as I have on this. I also have not received one letter arguing in support of the Government's case. There has been massive concern, in standard form letters, but in personal letters, some of them written with great difficulty by people who have only just learned to read and write, saying how concerned they are for education in London and how committed they are to the retention of the ILEA. I have now been to two meetings organised in response to the Government's proposals. The first was in Tower Hamlets and the second in Southwark. There was unanimity across the whole range of social opinion among teaching staff—we have heard today that nine out of 10 teachers are against the proposal—other staff employed by ILEA, parents, pupils the churches and the voluntary sector. Although, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly pointed out, there are things one can criticise about ILEA, on balance the overwhelming opinion is that its continuing existence should be supported.
During the debates on the abolition of the Greater London council it was important for those of us in London that the review clause about ILEA should be written in and that no hasty decision on ILEA should be made at any later stage. That is why my hon. Friends and I will support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his hon. Friends which again argues the case for a review.

Mr. John Maples: The hon. Gentleman referred to the abolition of the GLC. When that was first proposed, was there not exactly the same concern among the public, the same public meetings, letters written and speeches made in the House? The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) numbered himself among those who predicted that the world in London would come to an end without the GLC. In fact, the GLC has sunk without trace. It was not mentioned to me once during the general election. Does he not think that the concern now may be totally unfounded and grossly exaggerated, as it was for the GLC?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly proper point. My view is that London and the government

of it is worse for the abolition of the GLC. Although life goes on, as it inevitably does, there remains the question of the standard of life and the quality of provision. My argument is that the review provisions for ILEA were built in because there was concern, including concern among some Conservative Members, that ILEA needed to continue to exist. As the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) will know, ILEA, in one form or another, goes back over a century. It meets the pan-London needs that boroughs such as Southwark and others would not particularly be able to meet, strapped as they are for resources and the ability to cope with present responsibilities.

Mr. Tracey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I will not give way because I want to make a relatively brief speech so that other hon. Members can speak in this short debate.
I want to try to persuade the Government that they should listen to the London Parents Action Group. It is not a party political body. It consists of concerned parents who are trying to persuade the Government by facts that their proposals are wrong and misguided. That is why today's debate is important. It shows a substantial degree of unity across the House.
The amendment in this group which is in my name and not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) refers specifically to some of the matters that have already generally been raised and demonstrates our especial concern that special education and further and continuing education should he the subject of the Government's particular consideration now. We believe that those matters, above all others, will show the folly of the present proposals. They will show the need for a provision that goes wider than single boroughs because many needs could not be met by single boroughs within London.
There are two relative Acts that determine the criterion for educational review. In the Education Act 1944, there is provision for the Secretary of State to set up cross-authority provision if, otherwise, there would be no ability to
tend to diminish expense or to increase efficiency
or if such a provision
would otherwise he of public advantage.
The same Act permits such provision on the basis of expediency. In the Local Government Act 1985 abolishing the GLC, cross-London educational provision was said to be something that the Secretary of State should consider and implement if it could be secured "with advantage". I believe that it would be to the advantage of education in London and it would be expedient and helpful in terms of expense and efficiency if there were a continuing cross-London authority. Also—the point has been well made — it is vital to preserve certain types of provision, which, once destroyed, could not be recreated. Such provision includes special education and further and continuing and adult education. Such provision should be secured at an early stage, whatever else is done.
Many examples could be given—I do not intend to list all the examples that we could all give from personal and local experience — of the special needs that could not be met without a cross-London authority. There are many sorts of disability that have not been referred to


because there are so many that it would be difficult to mention them all. For example, there are visually impaired, physically disabled and delicate children. There are ILEA schools in all inner London boroughs for children with severe, moderate or specific learning difficulties. There are schools for children with behavioural difficulties. There are boarding schools and day schools and schools for children with language impairment. There are schools for autistic children. There are six hospital special schools and all sorts of central services that could not be sustained, such as home tuition, special inspection, specialist careers officers for pupils with disabilities, senior youth work educational psychologists and so on. There is an enormous range of services that could not be provided by any single borough, let alone all of the boroughs. There are certain types of school of which there is only one in London. There is only one secondary school for the deaf and only one boarding school for the blind. Those schools cost a lot but are vital because children who attend them are entitled to the same education and opportunity in life as anybody else.
Further and continuing adult education has been the subject of a massive campaign. The hon. Member for Dulwich and I were privileged last week to receive a deputation from the Southwark institute. Those people had done beautiful craft work. Some of them did not have a high intellect and had mental disability but they produced a wonderful piece of work as their protest. It was an appropriate physically creative protest against what is being done. The hon. Member for Dulwich has also mentioned Morley college, which Southwark shares with Lambeth. Other institutions such as the Working Men's college have been mentioned. They too are vital to providing an extensive range of education across London.
There are thousands of people in London, a higher percentage than anywhere else in Britain, who avail themselves of adult education. A total of 15 per cent. of all adult education provided in England and Wales is provided by ILEA. One in seven Londoners over the age of 16 avails him or herself of adult education. It is particularly useful for helping with the education of those who are unemployed or disadvantaged. Many of those who use it pay no fees because they have had severe financial difficulties in the past and have lost educational opportunities. Those are exactly the sort of people we need to support and encourage.
There is a plea going out to the Secretary of State and his colleagues from both sides of the House. In their blindness—I believe it is due to an incorrect view of issues such as expenditure and performance and so on in ILEA—they are in danger of destroying so much. Even if they want to preserve what are, at the moment, some of the component parts of ILEA, some other provisions will be destroyed. ILEA can be reformed, but one cannot fundamentally tamper with the whole without destroying many vital services.
Let me finish on a personal note. Before I came to this place I was a youth worker in inner London for seven years, so I know of the vital need for that non-statutory service. That is one aspect of additional provision that I have not mentioned—nursery provision is another—that is threatened by the abolition proposals. There are many people with special needs for whom ILEA has set out to provide. I ask Ministers to think again, to consider the evidence—both of ILEA's record and of the opposition

to abolition—to conduct a review and, in particular, to consider the needs of those who will be hit hardest if ILEA is abolished.

Mr. John Bowis: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have advanced their arguments against abolition very moderately. Those arguments come down to two assertions. The first is that in some boroughs abysmal Labour administrations cause problems. The second is that some services require the resources of more than one borough.
First, we should bear in mind that we are not starting from scratch, but are trying to build on the existing provision of services in boroughs such as Southwark. I am sure that if such boroughs need help, the Government will be the first to provide it. Secondly, the co-operation of boroughs in providing services is precisely what we should be discussing now. We should be moving on from the debate about whether ILEA should be disbanded to a debate on how it should be disbanded. It is right for hon. Members to express their worries and to convey the worries of parents and the problems of children with special needs and their families and to say, "Let us get together and sort these matters out." That should be the next stage, once the Bill is passed.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) opened the debate with a somewhat frothy call for surveys, research and ballots. We know the facts by now, for goodness sake. We have been surveying ILEA for years and years—as have parents, politicians, the Department of Education and Science and Her Majesty's inspectors. We do not need a great new exercise. In particular, we do not need phoney ballots.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bowis: Let me finish my point.
Two ballots have been referred to today. The first was a ballot of a quarter of ILEA heads. It is rather hard on heads to be put on the spot in this way. When one talks privately to head teachers they tell one that, whereas many years ago they had the greatest respect for ILEA, they would not cross the road to save it now. They say, "We cannot say it publicly now, but come the day that ILEA is abolished, we shall not be sorry."

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Bowis: The second ballot was supposed to be a ballot of parents, and the hon. Member for Blackburn said that he had cast his vote this morning. He may have cast his vote, but the House may be sure that his wife has not cast hers, because the ballot does not provide for both husband and wife to vote. It is an odd ballot that precludes individuals from voting. In most ballots in this country, we operate the one person, one vote principle. Furthermore, the parent with six children has six votes. If that does not distort the results, I do not know what does. If the hon. Member for Blackburn tots up the votes in the ballot, he will find that parents whose children have left. ILEA schools have had no vote and that parents whose children are to attend ILEA schools have had no vote. There is no vote for employers who take the product of the schools. Above all, there is no vote for parents who have opted out of the system and sent their children to schools outside ILEA or in the independent sector. In other words, there is no vote for those who have already voted with their feet.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. He seems to me to be spitting in the wind. Perhaps he would care to consider that the Government refused to include in last year's Tory manifesto a proposal to abolish ILEA, that they refused to meet a delegation of parents to discuss the abolition of ILEA and that they refused to fund a ballot of parents of children at ILEA schools. Who is the hon. Gentleman to complain, therefore, that a confidential ballot of head teachers came out overwhelmingly in support of ILEA and that an independently counted and organised ballot is being undertaken? Is not the hon. Gentleman demonstrating contempt for the views of parents who wish to retain ILEA?

Mr. Bowis: No. I have already explained why the ballots are not genuine. The hon. Gentleman's point about the manifesto is more important, although I thought we had dealt with it at the beginning of the debate. In our manifesto, we pledged ourselves to abolishing ILEA, but abolition was to come piecemeal, after a given number of boroughs had opted out. Since then many people, myself included, have decided that that would be a rather messy way of going about things. We feel that it would be better to make a clean break and to move on from there.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that he is concerned about the views of head teachers, and he is right to question the figures. May I invite him to go to the Grand Committee Room when he has finished his speech—I am sure that the House will excuse him—where he will find the head teachers gathered. If he does, he will hear the results of the opnion poll—which showed that only three out of the 232 heads surveyed supported abolition—confirmed with emotion and commitment by people who know what they are talking about because they are the people concerned.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I said what I thought about that matter. I also said that I talked to head teachers—

Mr. Corbyn: How many?

Mr. Bowis: They told me that they look forward to the new system being introduced once the debate about abolition is over. I am happy to talk to head teachers at all times—

Ms. Diane Abbott: How many?

Mr. Bowis: I have been round a lot of heads in my borough—

Mr. Corbyn: How many?

Mr. Bowis: I have been round head teachers of primary and secondary schools, further education colleges and special schools. They have all told me the same thing.

Ms. Abbott: How many?

Mr. Bowis: We need to take into account the large number of parents—

Mr. Corbyn: rose—

Mr. Bowis: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
We need to take into account the large number of parents who have opted out of the system in division 10 in Wandsworth. Some 45 per cent. of parents have chosen

to take their children away from mainstream ILEA schools. That is a damning percentage, and I seek to rectify that. I do not blame the parents, the teachers or the schools, but I want to improve matters. We must find a way of ensuring that more than a bare majority choose the local schools.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has referred to the number of parents who opt out. Does that not make the case, also made in the Conservatives' propaganda before the Southfields election, for consulting all parents in Wandsworth? Why does not the hon. Gentleman urge Wandsworth systematically to do that? Is it because parents came out in favour of ILEA in the opinion poll?

Mr. Bowis: They did not come out in favour. As I have just pointed out, many of them voted with their feet and moved their children elsewhere, and a bare quarter of parents were satisfied with secondary education, with which I wish to deal in particular.
We know the sad facts about ILEA's results. We know the numbers of children who leave school with no examination passes and no qualifications. For the past few years, more than 22 per cent. of pupils leaving ILEA schools have left with no examination passes. That is more than twice the national average of 10 per cent. A breakdown of that figure shows that 22 per cent. of children of British origin, 15 per cent. of children of African origin, 13 per cent. of children of Caribbean origin and only 6 per cent. of children of Indian origin leave school without qualifications.
One cannot argue that it has to do with deprivation or multicultural problems. It is the mainstream, traditional child—if I may use that term—who is suffering most under the system.

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. Bowis: Perhaps I may finish this point before giving way.
The other side of the coin is the percentage of children who leave school with defined results—five O-levels or CSE grade 1 passes. A mere 16 per cent. of children leave ILEA schools with those results—as against a national average of 24 per cent.—and the figure for Wandsworth is only 9 per cent.

Mr. Spearing: Is not the hon. Gentleman ignoring my earlier point, to which I have received no reply? Whatever the results — good or bad — why does the hon. Gentleman believe that borough education, which is prospective and unknown, in Wandsworth and elsewhere, will do better? It is surely a matter of faith rather than an attempt to rectify existing difficulties.

Mr. Bowis: Of course it is a matter of faith—the hon. Gentleman is right —but it is faith based on the experience of the boroughs' ability to run things. It is based on the fact that the boroughs are much closer to the parents and that every councillor in every ward will have a say in education. Every parent will be able to go to his local councillor and there will be 60 voices in the council chamber talking about education, not two people going off to the dim and distant corridors of county hall. That faith is well justified.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is putting a great deal of faith in the local authorities' abilities, but surely it has been the Government's intention to remove powers from local authorities and consistently to criticise the way in which they carry out their duties. The Government have rate capped them so that it has become impossible for them to carry out those duties.

Mr. Bowis: That is not true. The purpose of the rest of the Bill—I hope that the hon. Lady is looking at the Bill as a whole—is to improve standards in schools and give parents, governors, heads, and so on, more say and control over resources so that they can raise standards. The Bill is a way of getting some of the burden of bureaucracy off the backs of schools in inner London so that the resources can be redirected to where teachers say they are needed—in the classroom, not at county hall.
The figures from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy for 1986–87 show that teaching costs per secondary pupil in inner London are £1,133 compared with a national figure of £813—only 72 per cent. of the ILEA figure. Perhaps that is a reasonable difference. However, let us look at the figures for the backup costs. For support staff, the figure for inner London is £374 per pupil compared with £122 for the rest of the country, which is 33 per cent. of that for inner London. For supplies and services, the figure for inner London is £143 compared with £61 — 43 per cent. of inner London's costs. Under the heading "Miscellaneous", the figure is £93 in inner London compared with £38 elsewhere, which is 41 per cent. of the inner London figure.
Let us compare inner London with another city, Birmingham, which is Labour-run. The miscellaneous item is not £93 per pupil but £19. Premises-related costs in Birmingham are not £194 but £66. Non-teaching costs are not £360 but £101. That is where the savings can be made. The resources can be transported and redirected to where we all want to see them: in the classroom, supporting the teachers — supporting the successors of Opposition Members who have been teachers. The figures show that we can do it.
If that massive overspending resulted in good results, I should not begrudge it. Nobody would begrudge ILEA spending twice as much as the rest of the country if, by doing so, it brought the standards up to a par—no more than that. If standards were higher than average through ILEA spending twice as much, we should say that that was good, but ILEA has not done that. How much more money would ILEA have to spend to raise its standards to those of the rest of the country? Would it be twice as much again, twice as much on top of that, or twice as much on top of that? The Opposition must face that argument; they must face the costs. It is misdirected overspending, not just overspending in itself.
ILEA itself says that the costs in secondary education
are an area where the discrepancies between ILEA and other similar LEAs are among the largest.
That was a quotation from "Approaches to the Authority's Forward Financial Planning for 1988 to 1991."

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: If ILEA is abolished, one of the crucial questions will be the financial problems created by the run-down of ILEA and the boroughs taking responsibility over the next few years. Does the hon.

Gentleman envisage that each of the boroughs will have at least the same amount of money to spend as ILEA has now, or does he expect the boroughs to have less money?

Mr. Bowis: I shall expect the boroughs to talk to the Department of Education and Science when working out their priorities and needs. Then the Department can argue the case for resources with other Departments. We must look ahead. There is no reason why adequate resources should not be there to support education in inner London. No doubt boroughs that need more will receive more.
Hon. Members have referred to the HMI report, which the hon. Member for Blackburn said was so good. He said that it stated that no change was needed. In some cases the HMI verdict highlights good quality. For example, it says:
overall the quality of ILEA's primary schools is similar to that found generally in the country. The range of good, average and poor is not exceptional.
I agree with that. It bears out my belief that things go wrong at the secondary, not the primary, education stage for inner London pupils.
On Friday night, I went to a primary school in my constituency, where we saw a show called "Rats", which is a version of the Pied Piper. I thought that it was a better performance than the National Theatre's version a year or. two ago. It was excellent. It was based on traditional learning. The children learnt lines—even some from Robert Browning. There was good music. The staff worked out of school hours and there were volunteers. Parents came in to help, and the performance was based on contacts and donations It was based on good traditional teaching. It had nothing whatever to do with ILEA and everything to do with a well-led school. A well-led school in that category, music and all, has nothing to fear from the change and everything to gain from the reputation that it has built up.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point about whether ILEA's costs and standards are as satisfactory or as good as they could be. Does he not realise that if he, like me, says that primary education is normally good in ILEA, but secondary education leaves much to be desired, the best thing to do would be to carry out a review? A review would prove that, compared with other services such as the police, health and social services, education is relatively cheap in inner London. It would be best to review it in a steady and considered way and decide what is weak and needs to be reformed rather than to abolish much of what the hon. Gentleman says is good..

Mr. Bowis: The HMI has done a review, which is why we are moving on to take action now.
Mr. Bolton says:
Secondary education in the ILEA is generally rather poor, though there are a few schools of high quality, mainly in the voluntary sector.
We knew that. Of the 2,500 lessons seen by HMI, a mere 20 per cent. were judged to be good, only 40 per cent. were satisfactory and a further 40 per cent. were unsatisfactory or poor. Worse than that, of the three core subjects, the report declares mathematics to be variable and science not good, with fewer than half the lessons seen reaching acceptable standards and some being very poor indeed. On public examinations, the report says:
Some pupils do better than can reasonably be expected; but the fact remains that many others fail to achieve the high grade results of which they are capable.
That is despite


the level of staffing and resources which are always generous and sometimes to excess.
That is what we know from the officials. Much has been made of letters that people have received. I should like to quote from a letter from a teacher who took early retirement from ILEA, having worked for ILEA for 30 years. That person, who is not a Conservative and makes it clear that he has never voted Conservative in his life, says:
Conservatives now are talking more sense about education than the Labour party has done for many a long year, so I support Kenneth Baker's education Bill and the decision to axe ILEA.
He goes on:
In my opinion the major factors in ILEA's decline are:

1. the uncritical, wholesale adoption of teaching methods solely on politically ideological grounds rather than on educational grounds,
2. the ease with which 'empires' were allowed to grow"
that is important—
"3. the enforcement of VI form reorganisation,
4. an intolerance of criticism."

It is fascinating that the writer of the letter goes on to say:
The ILEA swallowed whole the claims of the self-styled `progressive education' lobby and made sure by one form of pressure or another that it became the new universal orthodoxy in spite of its unproven validity. As a historian, I find it highly ironic that so called left wingers so zealously espoused the educational theories advocated by Giovanni Gentile, Mussolini's first minister of education. Incidentally, Gentile's successor in that office was a man called Radice. Is this a coincidence?
I shall now proceed from that first-hand experience to more recent information in a newspaper in the past few days, in which we are told that the Leader of the Opposition has been supporting books by the Marxist organisation Liberation for use in London's schools. The right hon. Gentleman has endorsed those books, saying:
They should be part of the syllabus of every school.
The book is edited by Left-wing activist and teacher, Chris Searle. In particular, he likes some poems, one of which is called "Racist People." In its third verse, it says:
Mrs. Thatcher don't give a shit,
I think it's time she got hit.
Of the poems, the Leader of the Opposition says:
They inspire us, they give us hope and life, they fire us. They give us that insight, that piercing view of our society that has been put in such a beautiful and proud way in this book.
It gives other examples, including the unpleasant one of a play in which a gang of black youths go to Stoke Newington police station and are told by the police,
I don't want no lip from you, Sambo.
That is the sort of book that the Leader of the Opposition considers worth while passing round ILEA schools. I am not entirely surprised that there is a challenge to his leadership. I hope that the hon. Member for Blackburn, who has fled to check his credentials and reading list, is not under threat from the list that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is drawing up for his ticket.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is being grossly unfair to the work that Chris Searle has done over many years—writing poetry, reproducing the views of London children and bringing Caribbean culture into London schools, thereby allowing children the opportunity to express their views. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately misquoting and quoting out of context parts of poetry and comments about that poetry. I suggest that he should be

a little more honest when he is condemning someone who has done much good work for the culture of London schools.

Mr. Bowis: Out of the mouths, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not expect any Labour Member to defend the booklet. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would say that it is all a mistake and that he did not support it. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that he supports that wonderful poetry and these wonderful books.
It is, perhaps, guess who time. It might be guessed that the quotation,
I parted company with them when I began to question whether my duty was to the children or to some notion of being a militant trade unionist. They saw school as the factory and the children as the product,
comes from an officer of the Inner London Teachers' Association.
I shall give a quotation from a national newspaper:
'Union action in inner London pre-dates and extends beyond' the industrial action of the main teacher unions. `Their motives are not for the good of children or the benefit of teachers but a fundamental reordering of society.'
That might not easily be noted as coming from The Guardian.
I shall give a quotation from a well-known politician, who said:
What we have in the Inner London Teachers' Association is a group of warring sectarian Trots, trying to play a completely different agenda …. If the Inner London Education Authority has lost ground, it is largely due to the ILTA.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn will recognise his words.
I said earlier that there are problems that we should be tackling. There are matters, such as special needs, about which boroughs should be talking. This is the time to look for solutions to problems, because problems, concerns and anxieties there will undoubtedly be.
Let nobody say for one minute that we are condemning the whole of the ILEA out of hand. I am the first to pay tribute to good parts of ILEA, and some parts of it are excellent. At the same time, we must recognise that too much needs radical review for it to be done by piecemeal reform.
I ask that one sector be considered—the museums of London, the Horniman museum and the Geffrye museum in particular. When the GLC was abolished it was suggested that some museums should be attached to the British museum or to the Victoria and Albert museum. That suggestion was turned down, so they became part of ILEA for the time being. However, those museums have no tradition of being part of ILEA. A stream of letters has come in from people and international and national bodies in New York, Paris and Berlin which show that those museums are of international repute. They should be nationally funded. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make a brief response to that request.
I shall give a quotation that sums up the Bill —certainly this part of it—from the National Union of Teachers' education officer, who said:
The Baker reforms could lead to higher standards and an improvement in the education service.
I think that he is right.

Ms. Ruddock: I rise to support the review proposed and to tell the Secretary of State and his hon. Friends—it


should not be forgotten that they do not send their children to state schools—what effect their actions will have on education in Lewisham.
Teachers and parents in schools, nursery schools and colleges in my constituency are deeply worried about the prospects for education if the Education Reform Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill become law. The Secretary of State has clearly shown himself to be uninterested in the views of the majority of parents, teachers and, indeed, head teachers, who have all expressed concern about the effects of the Bill on London's children. Surely if the right hon. Gentleman had any integrity left he would wait until the results of the parents' ballots are known and then listen to their views about the abolition of ILEA before he acted.
According to Government plans, the abolition of ILEA will come into effect simultaneously with the imposition of the poll tax. At the same time, boroughs will be expected to bear the responsibility for running an education service while being denied the power to control their expenditure. Under the proposed new system of local government finance, the Government will control over 70 per cent. of local authority expenditure. Local authorities will be able to raise money only through the poll tax. In Lewisham, it is estimated that the poll tax will be about £1,350 for a two-adult household, which will be a massive burden on my constituents. Of course, the Government are hoping that such large poll tax bills will force local authorities to spend less money on services, including the new education service. We are entitled to ask what would be the effect on each inner London borough—I am referring particularly to Lewisham — if it could spend on education only at Government-set grant-related expenditure assessment levels.
I can tell the House what that would mean — the decimation of the education service. Some 445 primary school teachers would be sacked, along with half the support staff. Over 400 secondary school teachers would have to go and—perhaps even more shamefully—almost half of the teachers of children who have special needs. That would have devastating consequences for children in my constituency, one quarter of whom are from one-parent families and one in five of whom have both parents unemployed. How will those children receive the education that they need and deserve if ILEA is abolished?
Against that background of a deteriorating basic service I should like to refer briefly to three specific education services in my constituency that ILEA funds. The future of those services is directly threatened by the abolition of ILEA and by the Government-determined needs assessment.
My constituency houses one of the largest colleges of further education in Europe—the South-East London technical college. There are 13,000 students attending courses at SELTC — courses which range from vocational to community and arts courses. The college runs a certificate of pre-vocational education course to advise and assist young people, particularly those from deprived backgrounds, about their choice of career. It also runs engineering, business and catering courses. As an equal opportunities college it attracts an even higher number of students from ethnic minority groups than ILEA does generally. Of the 13,000 student intake, about 5,000 are from the borough of Lewisham and the rest are from outside the borough. It would impose considerable

administrative burdens on a single local authority if it had to run the college and recoup moneys from all the other authorities concerned.
The college is already being forced to leave lecturing posts vacant and it is justifiably concerned that Lewisham borough council alone would not be able to provide the resources that it needs. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister will reassure the staff and students at the college, who have drawn up a petition for the Government, that the Government's proposals will match current funding levels, no matter what the arrangements for the future, and that the diversity of courses will be maintained. If the responsible Ministers cannot give that assurance they must agree with us that, for the sake of this college of real excellence, ILEA should be retained.
I am also concerned about the future of community education, particularly child guidance. In my constituency there is a clinic that provides a vital service in an area of great need and much deprivation. The Forest Hill clinic deals not only with acute problems but has pioneered work with the under-fives, working with parents in the home to prevent the worst problems arising.
The service is ILEA-funded and it is because, and only because, of that that it can work with the many professionals who make up I he multi-disciplinary teams that can help these children with problems that may have physical repercussions, such as diseases like anorexia, which have a psychological basis. The clinic has a specialist unit that is concerned with cases arising from child abuse which, as we all know, is tragically on the increase. I do not believe that there is any way in which a single London authority in inner London, faced with all the problems of inner London, would be able to provide a service such as that being provided across London now by the ILEA child guidance service. The service takes a multidisciplinary approach, training social workers in Lewisham and in neighbouring boroughs and in. Bromley and Croydon. The service is efficient and cost-effective and can remain so only if there is a single, unitary authority in inner London.
I ask the Minister for reassurances, if it is possible to give them, that a single authority running such a service would be able to attract staff of the calibre of the present staff and support such a wide range of services with such a heavy case load.
Finally, I want to refer briefly to the Horniman museum, which has already been mentioned in the debate. It provides a valuable education resource for schoolchildren and all my constituents. It has been a fundamental principle that it should be free and accessible, and the success of that belief is shown by the 229,000 visitors that it attracted last year. How would Lewisham be able to run that service alone? This year, Lewisham is rate capped, with the result that we have had to close two branch libraries, reduce the opening hours of others and curtail several leisure services. The council would not be able to support the running of what is, in effect, a national museum without a level of special funding that I do not believe the Government would make available to a single borough. That being so, the Government must agree with us that ILEA is necessary to preserve this valuable resource, and it should be retained for all the reasons that Opposition Members have advanced.

Mr. Timothy Raison: rose—

Ms. Ruddock: I have nearly finished.


There is no doubt that the abolition of ILEA and the imposition of an unpopular and unjust poll tax can only have appalling consequences for education in Lewisham, and I urge the House to support my hon. Friend's amendments.

Mr. Maples: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and to give a threeout-of-three plug for the Horniman museum. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) made the same point about it as the hon. Member for Deptford. That shows a good degree of cross-party support and I am sure that hon. Members of other parties would be willing, in the right circumstances, to signify their agreement that it would not be right to hand over the control and responsibility for the running of the museum in this way.
The museum is not only a London-wide institution; it serves the whole south-east, and many teachers take their classes there. It has a world-class reputation for its anthropological exhibits, a world-famous collection of musical instruments and many other educational features. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to say how the Government propose to deal with the problem. The director of the museum, and all who have examined the issue, would like something along the lines of nationally appointed trustees and some degree of national funding. There does not seem to be any suitable alternative umbrella organisation.
Unfortunately, I can agree no further than this with the hon. Member for Deptford. I do not think that pressure on resources need be of anything like the order that she has described. The reason why the poll tax is potentially so high in Lewisham is the profligacy of the council. It could easily reduce its spending and have a poll tax of well under £300 without touching education spending. If the hon. Lady is concerned that the Labour council will be unable to run education, there is a simple solution—to advise her constituents to vote Conservative in May 1990, because there is no question that we shall have a policy for, and be capable of putting into operation, a proper education service in the borough after that time.
Conservative Members made two criticisms of ILEA. They are not comprehensive, all-embracing criticisms, but they consist of two fundamental themes to do with wasteful spending and low standards of achievement in ILEA schools. Opposition Members largely avoid those points when they attempt to support ILEA. Their alibis are, for example, that it is always more expensive to do things in inner London and that many children there are from socially deprived homes, but those alibis do not answer the central criticism, which is that ILEA is an expensive authority that does not deliver the goods.
I made these points and gave countless examples of them on Report last week, during the ILEA debate a few weeks ago and on many other occasions and I do not want to reiterate them now, except for two, which arise from this debate. ILEA's music centre at Pimlico—there is also a branch in Tower Hamlets — has been hailed as an example of ILEA's service. It is true that it offers an excellent musical education and provides an opportunity for a few children in inner London to study music and develop their skills. No one wants that service to go, but I wonder whether hon. Members who support it know what it costs. It costs £1 million a year to run the service

for the 470 children who attend it —more than £2,000 per child. It defies belief to suggest that it is impossible to organise music education for musically talented children in London for less than £2,000 per child per year. It is a scandal that it should cost so much. Of course, the service must continue, but anyone who suggests that that is what it needs to cost is out of touch with the world.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman remind us of the lowest fees per child at an independent school in London?

6 pm

Mr. Maples: ILEA's cost per child at a secondary school are greater than half of the fees in the independent schools in London. I was speaking about music education which costs £2,000 per child per year in the Pimlico centre, and the children go there only on Saturday mornings. The centre operates for only 32 weeks of the year. That is a staggering unit cost. The hon. Gentleman cannot attempt to defend that by comparing those costs with costs in an independent school. I think that it costs ILEA £2,600 per child per year in a secondary school. It costs 80 per cent. of that just to give music education. That does not make sense.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman came to the House with evidence about the costs in Chetham's school in Manchester, which has special music provision, we could have a reasonable debate. He cites one example about a special provision that caters for many children who would otherwise be deprived of that type of education. ILEA does it very well and the hon. Gentleman's argument proves nothing. He must realise that.

Mr. Maples: That is the most awful nonsense and the hon. Gentleman knows it. If the parents of those children were given £2,000 per year to spend on each child they could easily organise their own music education for considerably less. To suggest that it should cost almost as much to give music education on Saturday mornings as for the whole of a child's secondary education flies in the face of logic and reason. It is an example of ILEA providing a service which it is right to try to provide, but which it provides in an inefficient and profligate way. I am afraid that it is symptomatic of the way in which many of ILEA's other special services are provided.
My other example deals with the education standards that are achieved as a result of this expenditure. There are countless such examples. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a point on which I was unable to intervene. He prayed in aid the Bolton report, and I understood him to say that the report said that ILEA was getting better, that its standards were rising and that for that reason the Secretary of State ought to have a review and not abolish ILEA. If its standards have been rising over the past few years, I hate to think what they were like before that. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, a quarter of the children who leave ILEA schools achieve no GCEs or CSEs.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maples: I am in the middle of making a point in reply to one made by the Member for Blackburn to whom I should be happy to give way.
Only 10 per cent. of children leaving ILEA schools get five or more GCEs or CSEs. A crippling indictment of


ILEA is that of band I children, those who at the age of 11 are reckoned to be the most able quarter of children —I know that that is a rough estimate—only a third get five or more GCEs or CSEs. Of the band 2 children, the 50 per cent. average in the middle, only 6 per cent. achieve such results. That is what ILEA is achieving and I and most of my hon. Friends think that that is a serious indictment of the education standards of ILEA. If that is the result of an improvement, can the hon. Member for Blackburn tell us what ILEA's education achievements were like before the improvement took place? They must have been simply awful. The two central points of our argument that are never answered by the defenders of ILEA are that the standards that it achieves are low and that it spends an inordinate amount of money achieving them. Both of those faults can and should be remedied.

Ms. Abbott: I should like to make a special plea for the Geffrye museum in my constituency which serves children all over London. Thousands of children have benefited from visits to that museum, including me when I went there 25 years ago. Any arrangements made after abolition should preserve that museum as a free museum for the children of London.
When speaking about abolition, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) said that well-led schools have nothing to fear. Schools in inner London, especially those in the poorer areas and however well led, have everything to fear from abolition. My case comes back to a point made before in the House and I should like to make it again. It is about the arrangements for finance. However well led, schools that will have to be run with substantially less money than they had before abolition will have everything to fear in terms of standards and the prospects of the children.
In my borough of Hackney, we stand to lose at least £60 million under the abolition arrangements. Currently, Hackney puts in £33 million to [LEA and takes out £93 million. I have asked and asked, but I have yet to receive a clear commitment from the Secretary of State that the people of Hackney will not be financially worse off as a result of abolition. I ask again for the last time if the Secretary of State will commit himself by saying that the people of Hackney will not be worse off as a result of the abolition of ILEA.
What will the equalisation arrangement be? It is even worse than it looks, because not only will we be £60 million worse off in the first instance, but the imposition of the poll tax will widen the gap. After abolition, the poll tax in Hackney will be £744 per head. The people of Hackney want to hear from the Ministers some clear and concrete proposals about equalisation. We want to know where the money will come from to run our education. We are giving the Ministers a last chance to tell us that.
How can Ministers and Conservative Members talk about their concern for education prospects for children in inner London and how can the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Maples) wring his hands and express totally bogus concern for education standards when children in Hackney are faced with a drop of £60 million? That could mean cuts in staffing, books and buildings of 25 per cent. When ILEA goes, teachers will be faced with losses in career prospects and support services. Hackney will have special difficulty in attracting staff. The loss of money, support structures and career prospects will lead to enormous difficulties for the poorer

boroughs in attracting staff. How can the Government seriously talk about an increase in standards for areas such as Hackney?
No one has spoken about the effect of ILEA's abolition not just on poor children in London but on black children. One of the consequences of abolition is that the poorer boroughs will have far less to spend on education. As it happens, most of those poorer London boroughs are the centres for the black population. It is legitimate to raise the interests of black children in the debate because, as many Conservative Members may or may not know, 45 per cent., nearly half, of black schoolchildren are educated by ILEA. An attack on education in London is an attack on the education prospects of nearly half the black schoolchildren in Britain. I wonder whether the Secretary of State wants to go down in the history books as the man who built into education in London differentials in spending related to race that were commonly seen in schools in Atlanta and in New York before the campaign for civil rights. Does he really want to build in differentials in spending that closely parallel the distribution of black people in the capital? That will happen if ILEA is abolished without making proper arrangements for the equalisation of finance.
Those are the two points that I wanted to make. I wanted to talk about the money and about whether the Secretary of State had seriously considered the effect of abolition on poor children and specifically black children. I have been lobbied by hundreds of parents in Hackney and have had hundreds of letters from parents as a result of the Secretary of State's proposals. They want to know where the money will come from, and they want a commitment that standards will not drop. I would like a statement from the Secretary of State that he has seriously considered the ramifications of his proposals.

Mr. Alan Amos: The fundamental question before the House is whether the continued existence of ILEA will lead to an improvement in education standards in inner London. The answer to that question is no, it will not, and the evidence for that is based on experience of ILEA. Another question is why it is not better to have education provision delivered at the most local level, that is, at the borough level. In outer London there are boroughs with two or three constituencies, and, regardless of size, they are able to deliver a satisfactory, if not good, education system.
Also, the House must ask why an education authority which is supposed to gain tremendous advantages from economies of scale is the most profligate in the country. Another question is why Opposition Members constantly expect that if one is working class or lives in an inner city, one's academic performance will be lower.
There are good educational, financial and political reasons for getting rid of ILEA, as I hope to show. In the words of The Economist earlier this year:
Labour-controlled ILEA has a reputation for administrative inefficiency, low standards and political interference in schools.
The article goes on to talk about political tyranny and the existence of corruption and inefficiency, and says:
ILEA is better at political posturing than at running things.
It talks of ILEA's "labyrinthine bureaucracy". No other local education authority has aroused such hostility, spent so much and achieved so little. We have not seen such a large drift into private education anywhere else. ILEA is


blinded by dogma and divorced from the needs and wishes of ordinary people. Opposition Members must listen a little more closely to what people are telling us as politicians.
ILEA seems to have worked—I say "have" because I am sure it will be a thing of the past—on two misguided assumptions. The first is that one has only to spend more money to get better academic results. The second is that one can insinuate insidious political dogma into school classrooms with impunity. Before Opposition Members ask for examples, I will give one, which is based on experience and which concerns me considerably.
A little while ago, I visited Camden girls' school for a speaking engagement and the deputy head there told me about how ILEA had politically interfered with the good running of the school, and showed me evidence. It had subtly starved the school of resources just because it happened to be a former grammar school and it wanted to remain a single sex school.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation against ILEA. He owes it to the House either to withdraw it or substantiate what he means by talking about vindictive behaviour by ILEA — those were the words he intended to use—against individual schools. That is a most damning thing to say, and if the hon. Gentleman cannot substantiate it he should shut up.

Mr. Amos: If the hon. Gentleman wants substantiation of it, I suggest that he goes to the school and speaks to the staff unofficially, and they will tell him the truth. At the school, while there was a shortage in certain basics, there was no shortage of irrelevant and wasteful anti-racist and anti-sexist propaganda, which I can assure the House goes straight into the bin.
Let us look at the state of ILEA's education system, because if we are to discuss whether it should continue we should look at what it is doing. Let us start with staff morale, which we are constantly being told is bad because of the Government. I assure the House that, as chairman of the education committee in the London borough of Enfield, which is close to ILEA, I know that staff morale in ILEA was low eight or nine years ago, and morale has continued to sink since then. There was a growing number of applications for schools in Enfield. Despite all ILEA's money and its so-called training schemes, hundreds of ILEA's teachers were trying to get out of ILEA. Unfortunately, the quality of those teachers was not as high as one would have expected from the comments of Labour Members, despite the training schemes that ILEA undertakes.

Mr. Tony Banks: Geography is obviously not one of the hon. Gentleman's strongest subjects if he thinks Enfield is close to ILEA. If he thinks there is such a feeling among teachers, would he be prepared to support a referendum among teachers as well as among parents about the Government's abolition proposal?

Mr. Amos: My constituency is large, and to travel 50 miles is no distance. With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, the southern part of the London borough of Enfield is but a few miles from the boundary of ILEA.
The quality of many of ILEA's teachers was not as good as it should have been, despite all the money and

training schemes. One wonders precisely what was going on. Despite this so-called haven of harmonious happiness, 2,500 secondary pupils leave Lambeth for Wandsworth every day and morale in the teaching force is not good. One can only assume that that is because of the actions and inactions of ILEA.

Mr. John Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman is attacking ILEA because about 2,000 pupils leave Lambeth every day for education in Wandsworth, which happens to be a better distribution of services, why does he think that the breaking up of ILEA will solve that problem?

Mr. Amos: That is an easy question to answer because decisions will be made at local level and the authority in charge will not have money to waste on political propaganda. They will have to spend their resources on education and nothing else. That is why education will be better.

Mr. Tony Banks: So children will go from one ILEA school to another.

Mr. Amos: ILEA will be remembered for its disgraceful quality of education. Its reputation has gone before it not only in London but throughout England. [Interruption.] It is all very well Opposition Members shouting and heckling, but ILEA is a disgrace. People regard it with horror. They constantly ask me, in many capacities, what goes on in ILEA and whether the authority has any chance of helping children to break out of their cycle of deprivation and inequality. They have no chance of doing that, which is why we must get rid of ILEA.
Let us judge ILEA by its exam results. Peter Newsom, a former education officer of ILEA, said something about which I should remind Opposition Members, because they often forget the facts. He said that exam results are
below the national average",
and that
a significant feature of them …is how stable they have been".
So they are bad, and getting no better, despite all the extra money that is being spent. This terrible state of low morale in the teaching force and appalling exam results has been going on for a number of years. It has nothing to do with a lack of money and everything to do with political manipulation. I would be the first to vote in favour of extra spending if I thought there was a direct correlation between spending levels and exam results, but there is not.
It is an insult, and typically Socialist, to assume that children who live in inner-city areas, who have a high incidence of living in one-parent families or having divorced parents, are bound to have poor exam results. As The Economist said, the fundamental problem with ILEA is that of low expectations, to which hon. Members have already referred. It is the tragedy of ILEA that political masters have expected so little from their pupils that they have achieved so little and are satisfied with so little. The 1980 HMI report talks about under-expectations of what pupils could achieve, but this is merely the logical extension of what the political masters expect.
It is no good the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and other Opposition Members saying that, if one allows for this and that, ILEA's results are as good as those of Oxfordshire. It is an utter fraud to try and twist figures to suit what one wants when they do not deliver what they are supposed to deliver.

Mr. Straw: I was quoting from the Department of Education and Science circular 13/84.

Mr. Amos: It is like the Labour party saying that, if it had not been for its disastrous policies, it would have won the general election. There is a direct link between disastrous policies and socialism. They go hand in hand. One cannot fiddle the figures to get what one wants. It will not work. Unemployment is coming down. We are achieving success on all those fronts.
Let us consider the academic and financial record of ILEA. It spends 50 per cent. more per secondary school pupil than the outer London boroughs do. Clearly that is not due to inner city problems because ILEA is still spending 75 per cent. more than Birmingham, which is at present Labour-controlled. One could argue that the running of schools in inner London needs a smaller unit to obtain comparable results, yet classes in ILEA are on average 20 per cent. smaller and the results still no better.
Surely ILEA must have some advantages. The one advantage constantly vaunted is that it has economies of scale, but even that bears no relation to reality because its administrative costs are twice the national average and it has two and a half times as many bureaucrats as any other local education authority. Despite higher spending, smaller classes, more teachers and more support staff, academic results in ILEA are twice as bad as the national average.
If we are serious about giving youngsters in inner London equality of opportunity, we must allow them to break out from the suffocation of ILEA, which has clearly been unable to raise standards. If we want competition and excellence, ILEA must be broken up. It has not even reached the level of mass mediocrity. Opposition Members must face the fact that it has failed and must be prepared to do something about it.
I wish to ask the hon. Member for Blackburn two questions. He claims to be concerned about the possible disruptive effect of the abolition of ILEA. Should we assume, therefore, that his party will not be seeking to restore ILEA? In view of his comments extolling the virtues of ILEA, if it is not going to be restored, why not?

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Over the last few days I have listened with great interest to the debate on the Education Reform Bill and I have held my fire because I specifically wanted to speak in this part of the debate. I should like to put my comments into the context of my support for much of the rest of the Bill because I hope that, in that way, my criticism of this part will be taken more seriously.
I support proposals for diagnostic testing, if it is properly done, to show the performance of a particular school and to show parents how their children are doing in relation to others. I do not support competitive testing where one child is shown to be bottom of the class, deemed to be a failure and gives up. Testing must be done with great care.
I do not even oppose the controversial issue of opting out as a matter of principle, if it is implemented properly. I am sorry that the Government have not had the courage of their convictions in respect of opting out and have not allowed the proposals to go forward on the basis of a ballot and a simple majority of all those eligible to vote. On the present basis, after a vote of only three parents, if two vote to opt out and one does not, the proposal is

accepted. That makes nonsense of the system. If the proposal is as good as the Government say, they should back it by allowing it to go through with a straightforward majority of parents eligible to vote, because it will work only if it has the commitment of the parents of the children in that school.
If the national curriculum is implemented with sufficient flexibility and sensitivity, it will be a long overdue reform and will raise standards. Let us raise standards and expectations. Low expectations are a serious problem in our education system. Until we address that matter, everything else is irrelevant.
What has been wrong with our education system for so long is performance at secondary school level, perhaps to a greater extent in ILEA than elsewhere in the country. The focal point of any reform should be in our secondary schools. The children are under-achieving, demotivated and playing truant. Demands are not being made of them and they are not even enjoying being at school.
In last week's debate we spent considerable time considering what we should do to encourage more 16 to 19-year-olds to stay on at school. We discussed financial incentives for them to do so. However, we overlook what happens between the ages of 11 and 16. So many children do not want to stay on at school because their experience between the ages of 11 and 16 is so poor that, at best, they cannot see any point in staying on, and, at worst, they cannot wait to get out. We have to make experience between 11 and 16 stimulating, dynamic, exciting and rewarding so that children value their education and want to continue it. Whatever we do beyond that stage will have no bearing on whether more children take up that option, unless their early experience has been enriching.
In view of my wholehearted commitment to and welcome of some parts of the Bill, I hope that my limited and constructive criticism of this part of the Bill will be received with an open mind. I see the proposals for the abolition of ILEA and the devolution of children's education in London to the boroughs as nothing less than madness. I speak from a heartfelt conviction, not just as an inner London Member of Parliament, but as a parent of children in the inner London state education system and as the mother of a boy who is not yet three and about whose future education I despair if the proposals are accepted.
A hideous game of political football is being played with inner London children. ILEA's performance can be criticised and I have never been backward in saying what was wrong with it. Its administrative tier is heavy both in terms of expenditure and bureaucracy. Its performance at secondary school level leaves a great deal to be desired. The politicisation of children's education over the past 10 years is undesirable. However, the Secretary of State's proposals will do far more damage at one stroke than 10 years of Left-wing Labour administration has done. Let us preserve what is good in ILEA and reform what needs to be reformed.
What is good and under threat? Nursery provision in ILEA leads the rest of the country. Many education authorities of the size of Greenwich or Lewisham have virtually no nursery provision. We do not want that situation to develop here. We are prepared to spend money on those things that matter and nursery education comes into that category. Special needs have been extensively discussed in this debate and ILEA ranks high among the authorities with regard to such provision. The careers


service provided by ILEA is hardly matched anywhere else and its provision of further and adult education is among the best in the country, if not the world.
6.30 pm
There are a wealth of examples of good education practices that may go to the wall if ILEA is abolished and one of those is the City Literary Institute. It is the largest education institute in this country. It is physically located in three boroughs, so where will it go after abolition? It offers advanced as well as adult education. It does not just provide for the people of inner London. It provides a regional, national and international service. It has 25,000 people in its main institute and 15,000 in outlying colleges. Those figures do not include the 5,000 applicants who have been turned away and the countless others who have not bothered to apply because they know it is over-subscribed.
The institute, apart from its specialities in humanities, languages, and creative and performing arts, also has special facilities for the deaf and mentally handicapped. It provides the only training for hearing therapists in Europe. It operates a scheme called "Fresh Horizons", which is pioneering access to advanced education for those youngsters who missed the boat at school. For many people that institute is a lifeline. It is entirely funded by ILEA. What will happen to it?
What evidence have we been given to suggest that to transfer the education of our children from ILEA to the London boroughs will put matters right? How will the schools, in particular the secondary schools, improve when they are run by boroughs which have no experience of education, which are rate capped and which have notoriously under-performed in many other services?
We have heard today that head teachers have not been at the forefront in the defence of ILEA in recent months, but they have criticised this measure. If the Secretary of State under-estimates their opinion he will be making a severe mistake.
What should be done to reform ILEA? I will not provoke the House unduly by dwelling on the basic issue of proportional representation, but that would have eliminated extremism from ILEA at a stroke. If the Government will not reconsider the abolition of ILEA entirely they should seriously consider establishing a statutory, unitary body for those parts of education provision that come outside the statutory education age of five to 16. Such a body would cover not only nursery and tertiary education, but the colleges of further education, adult education, the careers service and special needs. Time and time again today it has been demonstrated that those services will suffer irreparable damage if some provision is not made for them.
We must seriously consider the outcome of the measure. It is my contention that it will be calamitous. Conservative and Opposition Members who represent London seats will rue the day that the abolition of ILEA was allowed to go through. We need reform and acknowledged wrongs put right, but abolition is not the answer.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): rose—

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to rise at this point

when only seven inner London Members have been able to speak in this debate? I have not been called in this debate despite the fact that I am sponsored by a union that has 15,000 members who will be adversely affected by the break-up of ILEA. Is it not a disgrace that the debate should be guillotined to three hours, given this monstrous attack on education in inner London?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The guillotine and today's proceedings are not in my hands. The debate is guillotined and if the Minister rises I feel duty bound to call her.

Mrs. Rumbold: We have had a serious debate and the amendment has been discussed well by my hon. Friends and Opposition Members.
I was somewhat nonplussed by the opening speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). It was extremely long and it reminded me of the rather enjoyable times that I had in my childhood when I read stories about children at prep schools. I suspect that neither he nor I have had much experience of what happens in boys' prep schools, but I am fairly certain that the events that took place earlier this afternoon were rather reminiscent of the goings on at such schools when the boys get excited. I dare say that other hon. Ladies sometimes feel out of it, as I do, when they witness such extraordinary scenes in the House.
The hon. Member for Blackburn spoke of the independent London Parents Action Group. He stressed that it was independent. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) also spoke about it. It is alleged that the ballot that that group has organised will ballot all ILEA parents—I assume that that is correct. So far my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who is an ILEA parent, has not yet received a ballot paper. I understand that the hon. Member for Blackburn, also an ILEA parent, has received his. We shall wait to see whether those of our colleagues who are ILEA parents—there are some—receive their ballot papers.
The hon. Member for Blackburn should remember that in the recent election the Labour party did worst in London.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister suggesting that some parents will not be given ballot papers deliberately? The Minister should be extremely careful because the ballot campaign is being efficiently and independently run. The votes will be counted by the Electoral Reform Society. She is making a most disgraceful slur on those people who are attempting to give parents a voice when her Government deny them that chance.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman must be careful in what he says. I was extremely careful in what I said and I was merely seeking information. The distribution of the ballot papers is not in the hands of the Electoral Reform Society, which, of course, is an extremely reputable and highly honourable organisation. No one would say anything different.

Mr. Straw: The Minister is making a disgraceful attack upon the independent London Parents Action Group. That group has independently and without any form of party allegiance raised £80,000 as a result of voluntary efforts. At my children's school parents of all political persuasions are supporting ILEA. I could also tell her what has been going on in the school attended by the children of the Minister for Overseas Development, but, in deference to his children, I shall not name it.
I received my ballot paper only on Saturday and I dare say that as the Minister for Overseas Development often flies halfway around the world he has not opened his post from Saturday.
The Minister is reading quite well the poisonous words_ that have been put out by Conservative central office, but I cannot believe that she will totally ignore the views of London parents if they show overwhelming opposition to the Government's intention.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman makes many assumptions as to what I am or am not assuming. I have simply said that while my hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development was sitting beside me this afternoon he told me that he had not yet received his ballot paper. I am sure that he has had plenty of time in which to open his post. We shall watch with interest to see what happens.
The hon. Member for Blackburn rehearsed many arguments which have been repeated frequently in Committee and on the Floor of the House. It is very important that I should stress two points as a general theme before I answer the points made on specific amendments.
The first point was made very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who referred to the extravagance of ILEA and the recognition that many of the reasons why ILEA has been so unsuccessful are due to the fact that it is a two-layered authority. One layer of bureaucracy imposes on the local level. Opposition Members must accept that the Government have made up their mind. The Inner London education authority will go and delay is therefore pointless.
One of the most important tasks lies with Opposition Members who represent London constituencies. They must take the advice of ILEA's chief executive and start planning for the future. Some boroughs are already doing that. They include three Conservative boroughs, and I must tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey that Tower Hamlets takes its responsibilities equally seriously and has already entered into discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about plans for the future.
If Opposition Members say that they care for children— and I am sure that they are genuine when they say that they care—it is very important for the children's education and the services that ILEA provides across the boroughs that they go to their constituencies and boroughs and urge them to come to my right hon. Friend with their plans.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister said that delay is pointless. Does she not believe that delay which secures better education is worthwhile, not pointless?

Mrs. Rumbold: The delay will be pointless. It would therefore be far better if all delay was put behind us and people got on with the job. They should produce development plans for the boroughs to deliver education sensibly and suitably by 1990.
It may help if I set out briefly the timetable that we envisage leading up to April 1990. Shortly after Easter we hope to issue our draft guidance on the development plans that we are asking boroughs to produce. Throughout the remainder of the spring and early summer I would expect the inner London unit—which my right hon. Friend has

set up in the Department of Education and Science—to engage in serious discussions with the boroughs in the light of that draft guidance.
The full guidance will be issued formally immediately after Royal Assent and at that point we might expect that the boroughs would seek more detailed discussions as they prepare their plans. To allow sufficient time for local consideration of the plans, and for the necessary work leading to staff and property transfer orders that will be based on them, I envisage requiring those plans to be submitted not later than the end of February 1989. That is why I urge Opposition Members to take these measures very seriously.
In the light of the development plans we will be able to consider jointly with the boroughs whether it is necessary to establish formal co-operative arrangements in respect of particular aspects of the education service. Many hon. Members have referred to those co-operative arrangements.
I anticipate that the initial property and staff transfer orders will be laid in late summer next year, but that the process will continue until the abolition of ILEA. During that time the boroughs will work closely with ILEA to ensure that the transfer of functions takes place as smoothly as possible in April 1990.

Ms. Mildred Gordon: Is the Minister saying in effect that she will ignore the result of the ballot being organised by parents in a desperate attempt to hold on to some democratic rights to free choice?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady will be aware that Parliament is the institution that makes alterations to the way in which local government is run. That is a constitutional matter. A ballot cannot affect Parliament's decision in this matter.

Mr. Tebbit: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. This is a very important matter. After all, if we took notice entirely of what the parents say, we would have very much tougher legislation concerning homosexual teachers and the teaching of homosexuality in schools. That might not suit some Opposition Members.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand my right hon. Friend's message and I am sure that he is entirely right in his supposition.
The Government recognise that the preparatory work involved in becoming a local education authority will inevitably impose some additional financial burdens on the inner London boroughs. We therefore intend to provide specific grant aid in 1988–89 and 1989–90 which can be used by inner London councils for preparatory work such as the appointment of consultants, making preliminary appointments of administrative staff and establishing information systems.
The sums available for distribution between the inner London councils will be up to £3 million in 1988–89 and up to £10 million in 1989–90. Grant will be paid at 100 per cent. and we shall want to ensure that the money is spent wisely and effectively. We shall announce after Easter the criteria against which the grant will be available.
I am sure that the grant, which takes careful account of what boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth and Westminster have been telling us about their start-up costs, will be generally welcomed and recognised as a mark


of the Government's commitment to ensure the successful and orderly transfer of education responsibilities to the boroughs. We now look forward with this measure of our goodwill to close co-operation with the boroughs as they begin to set in place the arrangements to be supported by the grant.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Minister for her courtesy in giving way. I understood what the Minister said about start-up costs between now and 1990, should that be approved by Parliament and another place. When will the boroughs learn about the post-1990 arrangements? The arrangements post-1990 will critically depend on the issue of grant.

Mrs. Rumbold: That is exactly why we are asking the boroughs to have discussions with the Department. They can then iron out and discuss those points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) made much the same points as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to special education. I share his view of the importance of special education in inner London. I guarantee that the guidance that we shall issue shortly after Easter will pay careful attention to that aspect. That is not to say that we believe that some form of unitary structure is necessary for special schools. That is not necessary in outer London or in any other major city. Co-operation between the local education authorities is necessary to ensure that children are properly placed in schools which will benefit them and that co-operation exists elsewhere. We cannot accept that there are such differences between inner London children and those in the rest of the country as to make it impossible for those co-operative arrangements to work. That process will not be hindered by any of our proposals.
Any change in the pattern of special schools provision would require the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He would withhold that approval unless he was certain that the interests of the children with special education needs would in no way be jeopardised. Recoupment between local education authorities for special education is at full cost. Taking into account the volume of the current provision, there is no prospect whatever of children finding it difficult to get into the right school wherever it is located. We will discuss with the boroughs the way in which to preserve the range of special education provision while allowing it to come under local management in the boroughs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North also referred to sports facilities and I am aware of his great interest in that matter. With regard to the physical provision of sports facilities, all sites inside or outside inner London will pass to the boroughs. If there is no case for transferring a particular establishment to a borough, it will pass to the London residuary body. The Secretary of State can direct the most appropriate long-term home for the facility. Either way, the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to require boroughs to agree user rights with one another. There is no question of facilities being lost. Specific provision for the use of facilities will be the reponsibility of the boroughs, and I have no doubt that they will wish to maintain valuable classes, such as the horse-riding classes for autistic children to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred.

Mr. Tracey: The result of a time constraint is that the House has not reached an amendment tabled by some of my hon. Friends and myself that touches on facilities in outer London boroughs and in other boroughs further from London. These facilities must be kept for young sportsmen and clubs, perhaps by setting up a charity or partial charity. My hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned the London residuary body, but many of us are unhappy about facilities being transferred to the LRB and then being locked up, as it were, for many years. That is the position of a large facility in outer London at this moment.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognises that concern. I shall take my hon. Friend's point to heart.
The hon. Member for Newham, South argued that, because some features of education are currently organised on a cross-London basis, they will be so organised in future. I reject that general thesis. Special education, further education, adult education and youth service are all facilities that are organised in outer London boroughs and by individual boroughs. It is certain that individual boroughs can organise effective services and be responsive to local needs. There is no reason to doubt the ability of inner London boroughs to do exactly the same.

Mr. Spearing: That may be the position in outer London boroughs, but does the Minister agree that fixed facilities, their geographical location, administrative arrangements and, above all, the experience and cooperation of the staff — this applies especially to specialist services in central London—require continuation on a unitary basis if they are to be satisfactory?

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman said. However, we have an open mind about whether some services could be continued co-operatively between boroughs. That is one reason why it is essential that representatives of the boroughs come to the Department to tell us what they wish to provide for themselves and what they wish to provide through cooperative arrangements in future. Although services will be organised by individual boroughs, we have acknowledged that co-operation between the new inner London authorities is likely to be helpful for the provision of certain services. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be content with that.
I have great respect for the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). He is concerned that the boroughs are not capable of functioning effectively as education authorities. I hold no brief for the way in which certain boroughs have operated in recent years, but I think that my hon. Friend has overlooked two important considerations. The Bill provides for a national curriculum, open enrolment, local financial management and a system that will allow schools to be grant maintained. These provisions offer powerful safeguards against local mismanagement. I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that for the first time many inner London parents will be able to choose the local education authority in which their children are educated. No local education authority in London, no authority anywhere else, will have a monopoly of provision. In these circumstances, no borough will be able to avoid doing its best to offer acceptable education.
The second concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich is that some services will not be provided as effectively by individual boroughs as by ILEA. If he were to visit the metropolitan areas, he would find that boroughs provide effective and responsive local services, with sensible co-operation where necessary. The local education authority will be responsible, and at the end of the day it will be responsive, as a result of the ballot box, to the needs and requirements of those who vote. That is one of the most powerful reasons for wishing to devolve education responsibility to local authorities.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) talked about further education and referred to colleges that receive many students from outside London. The funding and organisation of such colleges will be principally the responsibility of the maintaining local education authority. In drawing up development plans, we are requiring boroughs to consult other authorities in their area. In doing so, boroughs will have the opportunity to take acount of the views of their neighbours on the shape of further education provision, for example. They will be able to recoup the cost of provision under existing mandatory arrangements. I remind the hon. Lady that under the Bill colleges will be given much greater responsibility for running their own affairs. None of that will be affected or impaired by the fact that the maintaining local authority is a borough rather than ILEA.

Ms. Ruddock: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall not give way. I must complete my speech.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) spoke about the grant-related assessment arrangements for 1990 and after, which are currently being reviewed. They will be discussed with the local authority associations later this year. The grant-related expenditure assessments for education for individual London boroughs will take account of their needs, including differing needs between boroughs. It is wrong to compare contributions and spending by ILEA in each borough with what might happen after 1 April 1990. The new system will mean that each borough will receive a needs grant that will make an allowance for individual needs and socio-economic factors. It will be the same assessment system that will apply to other inner-city areas throughout the country.
Finally, I shall read a gentleman's letter to me. He wrote:
Dear Madam, I was given this piece of paper and the envelope in which it was posted at the Camden Institute of Adult Education, where I attend a music appreciation class. I was expected to write to an MP on the Education Committee to protest at the losing of ILEA and also at the cuts that, we are told, will come into effect. I am writing instead to say that it has taken too long to deal with the ILEA which is, to say the least, extravagant with taxpayers' money, and that I have every confidence that when you consider what is to come after the ILEA you will give due consideration to adult education classes.
That letter was written by a pensioner, and I think that it provides a perfect conclusion to the debate.

Mr. Straw.: If ever there were a case for a review before making hasty decisions, it has been made this evening by the Minister of State. The hon. Lady has admitted that it is not possible to hand over the running of ILEA's services to individual boroughs, even if the right hon. Member for

Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) wishes to see that happen. In the same way, it was not possible to break up the GLC and hand it over to individual boroughs. Even the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has recognised that we shall find ourselves with a series of ad hoc arrangements in an attempt inadequately to replicate the services that are now provided by ILEA.
The Minister said that it is for Parliament to decide. Of course it is. We all know what the constitution is, but that does not mean that Parliament has to ignore the clearly expressed wishes of parents. There has been a curious contradiction in the debate. Conservative Members have tried repeatedly to legitimise their views by waving before us letters from constituents or well-wishers. I include in that comment the letter that the Minister has recently quoted. Why do we not take that process a stage further in a scientific way? Why do the Government not approve of balloting parents so that we may ascertain whether it is true that the Minister's mailbag and that of the right hon. Member for Chingford are representative of what parents feel?
If the arguments of Conservative Members were correct, there would be no support for ILEA and they would not have to worry about the result of the ballot to which my hon. Friends and I have referred. Instead, they are going to extraordinary lengths to denigrate the ballot. They know that parents, with their eyes wide open, support what ILEA is doing and the services that it provides.
If there was any need for persuasion of the case for time to consider the approach, and for a review to be undertaken, that need would be met by the sheer vulgarity, as well as the ignorance, of the contributions from the right hon. Member for Chingford. London's children deserve better than an education policy devised and written by the right hon. Gentleman. That is why the House should support the amendment.

It being Seven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution [23 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 310.

Division No. 233]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caborn, Richard


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Callaghan, Jim


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Paddy
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cartwright, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clay, Bob


Barron, Kevin
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Beckett, Margaret
Coleman, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blair, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cox, Tom


Boyes, Roland
Cryer, Bob


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Buchan, Norman
Dalyell, Tam


Buckley, George J.
Darling, Alistair






Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maclennan, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McTaggart, Bob


Dewar, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dixon, Don
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Doran, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Maxton, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Faulds, Andrew
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Flannery, Martin
Murphy, Paul


Flynn, Paul
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Brien, William


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fyfe, Maria
Patchett, Terry


Galbraith, Sam
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Primarolo, Dawn


Golding, Mrs Llin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Holland, Stuart
Salmond, Alex


Home Robertson, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Hood, Jimmy
Sheerman, Barry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, leuan (Ynys Mon)
Stott, Roger


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Gavin


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Straw, Jack


Lambie, David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lamond, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leadbitter, Ted
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Vaz, Keith


Livsey, Richard
Wall, Pat


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wallace, James


Loyden, Eddie
Walley, Joan


McAllion, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wareing, Robert N.


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wigley, Dafydd


McFall, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McKelvey, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McLeish, Henry
Winnick, David





Wise, Mrs Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Eggar, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Allason, Rupert
Fallon, Michael


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Farr, Sir John


Amess, David
Favell, Tony


Amos, Alan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arbuthnot, James
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baldry, Tony
Franks, Cecil


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodlad, Alastair


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bottomley, Peter
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gow, Ian


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowis, John
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Baling N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grist, Ian


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grylls, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Budgen, Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burns, Simon
Hanley, Jeremy


Butcher, John
Hannam, John


Butler, Chris
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Hayes, Jerry


Cash, William
Hayward, Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heddle, John


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chope, Christopher
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Churchill, Mr
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hind, Kenneth


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cope, John
Howard, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Curry, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Janman, Tim


Dover, Den
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)






Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Raffan, Keith


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rathbone, Tim


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Renton, Tim


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Latham, Michael
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shersby, Michael


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Major, Rt Hon John
Speller, Tony


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, David
Summerson, Hugo


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Moore, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Walden, George


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Walters, Dennis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Wood, Timothy


Price, Sir David
Woodcock, Mike





Yeo, Tim
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and



Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 166.

Clause 148

LIABILITY OF LONDON RESIDUARY BODY FOR REDUNDANCY AND COMPENSATION PAYMENTS

Amendment made: No. 429, in page 136, line 46, after `made', insert 'on or'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 163

EDUCATION ASSETS BOARD

Amendment made: No. 137, in page 147, line 16, leave out 'had'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 166

WRONGFUL DISPOSALS

Amendment made: No. 430. in page 150, line 12, after `local', insert 'education'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 176

APPLICATION OF EMPLOYMENT LAW DURING FINANCIAL DELEGATION

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I beg to move amendment No. 386, in page 155, line 36, at end insert—
`(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as leading to any consequential diminution of rights for employees in respect of employment conditions already enshrined in existing statutes and local authority agreements.'
Clause 167 gives this Secretary of State and any future incumbent of the office sweeping powers on employment law. They will enable the Secretary of State, at a stroke of his pen, to change the employment law for all those who work in teaching and non-teaching posts in those schools covered by local delegated financial management.
These powers have been granted to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, not to the Secretary of State for Employment. I noticed when re-reading the Committee debate that the Minister of State said that there would be consultation with the Department of Employment. That is at least the minimum, but it is scandalous that the Secretary of State for Education arid Science should have this almost unfettered right to alter employment law rights for thousands of individuals.
7.15 pm
These powers, by the back door, through stealth, give the Government the ability to change rights which have been built up over more than a century. They give the Government rights to change the law on health and safety— —a law which has given individual employees statutory protection against certain health and safety hazards The Government have moved significantly against the drift of European labour law. That law tried to build up the tights of individual employees, but the Government have tried consistently and systematically to reduce those rights.
The Bill will allow all these rights which have been built up over the past 20 years, starting with the conditions of employment legislation in the 1960s and continuing through the employment protection legislation, to be amended by the Secretary of State. All those important rights — the right to time off to carry out public functions, such as duties as a magistrate or as a local authority member and the right of women employees to have maternity leave — can be changed by the Government.
There are also problems with procedures for recognition. Although this matter is not directly covered by clause 176, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), worried many of us in Standing Committee when he referred to the possibility of the right of non-teaching members of staff to be represented by a trade union being taken away because of the process of local financial management. We would strongly object to that, because the democratic right to belong to and be represented by a trade union are crucial to a pluralistic society.
The Government are taking powers to change our employment laws in an education rather than employment Bill. That is interesting, because it comes from a Government who repeatedly lecture the trade union movement that trade unions must abide by the law and by agreements. Much of the industrial relations framework in education has been based on current employment law and agreements. The Government seem willing to get rid of those agreements at a stroke. If they do that, they have no right to lecture trade unionists on the way in which they should stick by and honour agreements.
What do we hear from Ministers in response to our fears? In reply to a debate in Committee, the Minister of State offered us three excuses, or reasons, for the Government's position. First, she said that we should not worry; that the measure applied only to schools covered by local financial management. But the schools to be covered will be all secondary schools and all primary schools with more than 200 children. A substantial proportion of education employees will be affected. It is no use saying that not many people will be affected by the clause. Many people will be affected. Furthermore, it is no excuse for the Minister to say, "We know that this is an outrage, but do not worry too much because it will not affect many people." If it were an outrage inflicted upon a minority, I suspect that we should be even more worried about it.
Secondly, the Minister offered the simple explanation that the powers will be used only when the Secretary of State considers them to be necessary or expedient. That argument has been used by Ministers on many occasions. They say, "Trust this Secretary of State; he is a good man. He will use these powers in a way that is reasonable because he is a reasonable man." The Secretary of State seems to be having great difficulty in convincing the public that he is a reasonable man. Mr. Two Per Cent. seems to have more success with his own Back Benchers than he does with the general public. The weakness of that argument is clear. It fails simply because, if it is necessary and expedient and this Secretary of State will use the power reasonably, by inference it admits that another Secretary of State will not use the power reasonably. We condemn the power for that reason.
Of course, we have little trust in the Secretary of State because he considered it necessary and expedient to take away from 400,000 teachers the right to bargain collectively with their employers. If he can do that at a stroke, he can take away other employment rights.
Thirdly, there are the reassuring words of the Minister when she said that we should not worry about the clause and the Government's intentions. In Committee, the Minister replied to my intervention with the following words:
I can see no reason why there should be any consequential diminution of rights for employees as a result of the clause."—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1808.]
If that is the Government's intention, we ask them simply to accept the amendment, because it is based on the Minister's words. If the Minister is true to her word, she will give us that reassurance tonight. If she asks us to withdraw the amendment simply because it is not technically correct, we shall do so; but if she does not accept the spirit of the amendment her words in Committee will have little value and worth and many thousands of teachers and non-teaching staff will be worried by the absolute powers in relation to their employment rights that the Secretary of State and Government are taking.
This is a challenge to the Minister. Is she true to her word? Are the Government true to the Minister's word? If not, we are worried. If they are, we are delighted, and hope that she will accept the amendment.

Mr. Flannery: Clause 176 is possibly the most draconian clause in a draconian Bill. The Bill is bespattered with the words:
The Secretary of State shall by order
and it then mentions regulations. It is necessary to understand the precise wording of clause 176. The teachers' organisations and all the unions that are interested in their members who work in schools fear clause 176 more than almost anything else. It is lamentable that the guillotine allows us only until 7.45 pm to discuss this very important subject. I hope that there will be a vote on it, but I do not know what my hon. Friends have decided.

Mr. Fatchett: We are hoping that there will be no vote, because we expect the Minister to stick to her words in Committee.

Mr. Flannery: My hon. Friend has more faith in the Minister than I have. I would want to vote on the amendment.
Clause 176 states:
The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications in any enactment relating to employment".
It then uses the following words which are used continually throughout the Bill:
as he considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the operation".
As I was reading that for the umpteenth time in a monumental Bill, which is as big as five ordinary Bills, and which, no matter how long we discuss it, has been discussed insufficiently, and as we have only a few minutes to discuss this matter, I decided to turn casually to any two pages in the Bill. Those two pages and many others contain exactly those words.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is laughing like a Cheshire cat at this draconian piece of legislation which will undo negotiations that have


existed for more than 100 years. It is appalling that Conservative Members are so docile that they go along with this catch-all clause which allows the Secretary of State to tamper with employment legislation, with teachers, school meals workers and anyone working in schools and "by order" to do anything that he wishes.
Conservative Members do not understand that the words in the Bill are draconian. The Minister kept saying in Committee, "We hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw this because we accept the spirit of the amendment." It was said time and again that the Government accepted the spirit of the amendment. The spirit of the Bill, and the clause in particular, attacks everything that we hold dear in the education system.
People have come here representing the vast majority of the people in ILEA, the head teachers, those who work in schools, parents and all the organisations of teachers and head teachers. They are all looking with care at clause 176. The amendment adds a subsection to that clause that will not be withdrawn. It provides:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as leading to any consequential diminution of rights for employees in respect of employment conditions already enshrined in existing statutes and local authority agreements.
I have spoken before about the centralisation of powers by this elective dictatorship with a majority of more than 100, dizzy with success and with power concentrated in the hands of one particular Minister. Such a concentration as is proposed would need a Pentagon instead of the DES; it would need a building vaster than the DES. Conservative Members do not understand exactly what they are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the fact that the negotiating rights of teachers were withdrawn. When any democratic right is enshrined in legislation, the Government pass a new piece of legislation, destroy the democratic right and say, "That is democracy, because we have a majority." That was one of the problems we faced when Lord Hailsham said that the Labour Government were an elective dictatorship, and when Lord Pym warned that it was dangerous for a Government to have such a large majority.
Clause 176 is only a little clause but it is feared by the teachers' organisations, the unions and other people who work in the schools. It will deprive teachers of the rights they have now. Those rights will be concentrated in the hands of the Secretary of State, whom we do not trust to use them properly. Those powers would also be put in the hands of any subsequent Secretary of State. Therefore, I would love to think that our amendment No. 386 will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The hon. Member for Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) finished so suddenly that he caught me by surprise. During his speech he said that this clause was an affront, not just to the network of rights held by teachers now, which have been negotiated as part of their employment rights for the past 100 years, but, perhaps more importantly, was an affront to the democratic system in Britain. I say that because I believe that that is the main burden of the clause.
We are concerned by the centralised power in the Bill. My concern with the Bill lies as much in the fact that it will damage our democratic system as with the fact that it will damage our education system. I do not believe that putting

183 powers in the hands of the Secretary of State, whether of this Government or any subsequent one, is good for our democratic system. This clause is, as the hon. Member for Hillsborough said, the most dangerous clause in the Bill without exception. As the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) said, it could be the instrument by which we take away the rights that teachers have to redundancy provision and could even attack the basis on which they receive their redundancy pay. It might attack their rights to trade union time off and time off for public duties and maternity leave as well as attacking other essential parts of their employment provision, which are part of the way in which we construct employment for teachers.
Much more damaging is the fact that this clause enables the legislation democratically passed through the House to be obviated by the Secretary of State for the day at the stroke of a pen. When we pass legislation we do so for the whole nation. Yet we are allowing a single Secretary of State to say that it will not apply to teachers, probably a majority of teachers, in certain circumstances. How can the House give the Secretary of State for Education arid Science that power which, as far as I know, is not given to any other Secretary of State? How can Conservative Members, who subscribe to the process of democracy arid the processes of the House, simply allow circumstances in which the Secretary of State can, at a whim, say that what is passed in the House does not apply because he says so?
The Minister may say that that must be done by order passed via the negative resolution procedure of the House. She knows, as I do, that that is a farce and a charade. At best, it would mean a debate in Committee, and we know that that would not be brought before the public's attention. We know perfectly well that there is no possibility of a Secretary of State, who wished to use those powers, being overturned by such a system. Therefore, that does not provide the safeguards we need.
I believe that the clause makes a mockery of the process of Parliament. I do not understand how Conservative Members can allow a Secretary of State, of this Government or any subsequent Government, the power to override legislation that passes through the House in respect of employment for teachers. Conservative Members should have a care because in this clause, as in so much else, the power they now give to their own Secretary of State could fall into the hands of others arid could be the instrument by which a Labour Secretary of State or Democrat Secretary of State could do things that they would find inimical. I recall the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in 1976 bringing forward legislation that enabled him to create workers' cooperatives. The Conservative party, which was then in opposition, asked from where he got the power to do that. He pointed sweetly to the Conservative Government's own Industry Act 1975. That is where he got the power from and that is what will happen with a subsequent Secretary of State who will hold the power to overrule legislation passed by the House.
I do not believe that Conservative Members should so lightly place power in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is what will be done if the clause is passed. In so doing, I believe that they will damage the established rights of teachers, which have been put together over so many years, and will potentially damage the system of democracy and the power of the House. I hope that


Conservative Members, some of them at least, will find the stomach and the will to vote against this, for that reason, if for no other.

Mrs. Rumbold: I have listened carefully to what has been said by Opposition Members. I must say that they are grossly exaggerating the scope of clause 176. The scope of the clause is restricted simply to the powers that the Secretary of State gives to schools in relation to financial delegation.
Perhaps I should remind the House of the Government's approach to staffing in schools and colleges with financial delegation. Staffing costs will amount to about 80 per cent. or more of the budgets of those institutions. Therefore, when delegating powers to governing bodies we must make those powers meaningful, and that must include the management of staff. Therefore, the Bill provides for the governing bodies of institutions with financial delegation to select staff for appointment, to have control of discipline and grievance procedures and of suspension and, where necessary, to require the dismissal of a member of staff.
Governing bodies will, of course, have at their disposal full professional advice from the chief education officer of the local authority and his staff and from the head teacher or college principal. We believe that that professional advice will be crucial, and we introduced several amendments and gave a range of assurances in Committee to make it entirely clear that the advice will be given and that the governing bodies will have to consider it. However, at the end of the day, if financial delegation is to mean anything, the governors will be responsible for taking decisions. Many of those decisions will be taken by the governing bodies of schools and colleges with financial delegation, even though the local education authority will remain the employer of staff, other than in aided schools. Therefore, it is appropriate that governors should be accountable for management decisions, and that is the essence of clause 176.
Local education authority interests were rightly concerned that LEAs might be held to account for an unfair dismissal, for example, when they had had no control over whether the person was dismissed. They have been reassured when we have told them that the governing body will have to respond for its actions before an industrial tribunal, because of the operation of clause 176.
There is a precedent for that distribution of responsibility in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. Where an aided school dismisses a teacher whom it employs on the instruction of the LEA, it is the LEA and not the school governors which appears before an industrial tribunal, since it has taken the relevant decision.
Such transfers of responsibility will equally be in the interests of the staff. For example, section 23 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 provides that an employee has the right not to have action short of dismissal taken against him for the purpose of preventing or deterring him from becoming a member of an independent trade union. In circumstances where the governing body manages the school, it must be right that the governors should not be able to take such action and should be held to account before an industrial tribunal if they were to do so. Similarly, under sections 27 to 29

employees have the right to time off work for trade union duties and activities and public duties, and there are similar responsibilities and duties that governing bodies will have to undertake in respect of matters such as maternity leave, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
It was suggested in Committee that we might list the relevant changes to employment law in the Bill itself. As I said then, we do not yet have a fixed view of what will be appropriate in every case. Therefore, we believe that it is right to consult the local education authority interests and the trade unions representing both teaching and non-teaching staff before the Secretary of State makes an order.

Mr. Fatchett: rose—

Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall finish my point, because it may help the House.
I give a firm undertaking that, after Royal Assent, we will consult those interests on the content of an order under the clause and that we shall listen very carefully to the views that are put to us. The process will be entirely public and the order will not be made without full consultation.

Mr. Fatchett: The Minister says that the Government have no final view on the implications of the clause and that the matter will now go out to consultation, which we welcome. How does she square her first comment with her remarks in Committee? I am sure that she was speaking for the Government when she said:
I can see no reason why there should be any consequential diminution of rights for employees as a result of the clause"—[Official Report, Standing Committee J, 25 February 1988; c. 1808.]
Is she still saying that, or have the Government changed their position?

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not think that what I have just said undermines the importance that the Government attach to consultation or to ensuring that we take into account all the different interests and views put forward in reaching a conclusion about making an order under the clause. It is on that basis, which I believe to be absolutely right and very open, that we shall be proceeding.

Mr. Fatchett: We can understand the process of consultation. Is the Minister now saying that the matter will go out to consultation with the Government's view clearly stated that there should be no consequential diminution of rights? Is that what the Minister is saying?

Mrs. Rumbold: I think that the hon. Gentleman's concern about the diminution of the rights of employees under the clause is somewhat misplaced. I do not see that we are doing anything different from what has been practised in the voluntary-aided and special agreement schools, in which the governing bodies have had considerable freedom in relation to the employment of staff. It seems to me that there are powerful constraints on any diminution of rights. There are powerful constraints on the governing bodies, in two forms. First, no governing body is likely to take action representing a diminution of employees' rights. The governing body will know perfectly well that it will be advised by its local education authority on exactly how to proceed. That will be a powerfull constraint. Similarly, local education authorities have discretion to say that the financial delegation schemes


applying in their schools should be withdrawn from a school if they believe that the governing body of that school is not acting properly.

Mr. Fatchett: I wonder whether I can tempt the Minister simply to answer the question. Do the Government have a view? If they do, it may be beneficial in the context of the consultation process. Is it still the Government's view that there should be no consequential diminution of rights? The Minister keeps saying that it will not happen, but we want to know whether the Government want it to happen or whether they will resist it. Is the Minister's answer to that question yes or no?

Mrs. Rumbold: I hope to make it clear that the clause is not about diminishing employees' rights, but about ensuring that power and responsibility for the governing bodies go hand in hand. The amendment is unnecessary, and it is also unacceptable because it could lead to disputes about what employees' rights are and what constitutes diminution of them. For example, some might be tempted to claim that it is a diminution of rights simply to have decisions made at school rather than at local education authority level. We do not accept that. We make no secret of the fact that many decisions will be taken at school level under financial delegation and that, therefore, employment rights should be seen to operate at school level. I hope that I have managed to reassure the House about the Government's intentions and that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Fatchett: Far from being reassured, we are even more worried. I offered hope to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but I suspect that his experience in this matter was well founded. The Minister has again worried us with her reply. All that we needed the Minister to do was to reinforce the proposition that there would be no diminution in employees' rights. She would not give us that commitment. We can come to only one conclusion: that local financial management will he used as a vehicle by which employment rights for teaching and non-teaching staff will be reduced. On that basis, we shall push the amendment to the vote and hope that Conservative Members who have understood the argument will support us.

It being a quarter to Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the orders [1 and 17 February] and the resolution [23 March], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 300.

Division No. 234]
[7.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Boyes, Roland


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Armstrong, Hilary
Buchan, Norman


Ashdown, Paddy
Buckley, George J.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Caborn, Richard


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Callaghan, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Battle, John
Canavan, Dennis


Beckett, Margaret
Cartwright, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bermingham, Gerald
Clay, Bob


Bidwell, Sydney
Clelland, David


Blair, Tony
Clwyd, Mrs Ann





Coleman, Donald
Livsey, Richard


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbett, Robin
Loyden, Eddie


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Cummings, John
McFall, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Darling, Alistair
McLeish, Henry


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McTaggart, Bob


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Doran, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Douglas, Dick
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maxton, John


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fearn, Ronald
Mowlam, Marjorie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, John
Patchett, Terry


Fyfe, Maria
Pendry, Tom


Galbraith, Sam
Pike, Peter L.


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Prescott, John


George, Bruce
Primarolo, Dawn


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Quin, Ms Joyce


Gordon, Mildred
Radice, Giles


Graham, Thomas
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Redmond, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Hardy, Peter
Richardson, Jo


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Robinson, Geoffrey


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Holland, Stuart
Salmond, Alex


Home Robertson, John
Sedgemore, Brian


Hood, Jimmy
Sheerman, Barry


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Clare


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


John, Brynmor
Spearing, Nigel


Johnston, Sir Russell
Steinberg, Gerry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Stott, Roger


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Strang, Gavin


Lambie, David
Straw, Jack


Lamond, James
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Lewis, Terry
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Litherland, Robert
Turner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Vaz, Keith






Wall, Pat
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)



Wigley, Dafydd
Tellers for the Ayes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Winnick, David



NOES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Emery, Sir Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amess, David
Fallon, Michael


Amos, Alan
Farr, Sir John


Arbuthnot, James
Favell, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Atkins, Robert
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Batiste, Spencer
Fox, Sir Marcus


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
French, Douglas


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fry, Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gill, Christopher


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Brazier, Julian
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bright, Graham
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Gregory, Conal


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Buck, Sir Antony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Burns, Simon
Grylls, Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Chris
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Christopher


Chope, Christopher
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayward, Robert


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Colvin, Michael
Heddle, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Cormack, Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Couchman, James
Hill, James


Critchley, Julian
Hind, Kenneth


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Curry, David
Holt, Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howard, Michael


Day, Stephen
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Devlin, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral W)





Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lightbown, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lilley, Peter
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Speed, Keith


Maclean, David
Speller, Tony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Steen, Anthony


Madel, David
Stern, Michael


Major, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Mans, Keith
Stokes, John


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Marland, Paul
Sumberg, David


Marlow, Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maude, Hon Francis
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Miller, Hal
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mills, Iain
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Tredinnick, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Moore, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moss, Malcolm
Walden, George


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Walters, Dennis


Neubert, Michael
Ward, John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wheeler, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Page, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wood, Timothy






Woodcock, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and



Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Madam Deputy Speaker: then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on the remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government.

Clause 180

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 238, in page 157, line 26, after '24(1)', insert
'(Replacement and variation of schemes) (6);.'
No. 239, in page 157, line 26, after 117(1) insert
'(Replacement and variation of further and higher education funding schemes) (6)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Clause 184

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 240, in page 160, line 14, at end insert—'section 99;'.
No. 241, in page 160, line 15, at end insert—
`sections 116 to 130 and 132;'.
No. 431, in page 160, line 16, leave out
'156 and 157; sections 163'
and insert '135'.
No. 118, in page 160, line 19, at end insert
'sections (Grants related to aided or special agreement schools) and (Grants: miscellaneous);'.
No. 244, in page 160, line 21, at end insert
'section (stamp duty);.'
No. 269, in page 160, line 21, at end insert
'section (Superannuation for staff of Further Education Unit);'.
No. 342, in page 160, line 24, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 51 and'.
No. 242, in page 160, line 27, at end insert—
'(1A) Notwithstanding anything in section 99 of this Act, until the end of the year 1989 any education provided by an institution for which immediately before the passing of this Act there is in force an instrument of government made under section 1 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1968 (government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education) shall for the purposes of—

(a) the Education Acts 1944 to 1988; and
(b) any other enactment referring to further education within the meaning of those Acts or of the 1944 Act; be treated as further education, and not as secondary education, within the meaning of that Act.'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 344, in page 188, line 27, leave out from beginning to '(determination' and insert—
'—

(1) Section 67 of the Act (determination of disputes and questions) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) (determination of question whether religious instruction is in accordance with trust deed), after the word "voluntary" there shall be inserted the words "or grant-maintained".
(3) In subsection (4)'. —[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 432, in page 203, line 18, at end insert—
'1963 c. 33. The London Government Act 1963. Section 32(7).'
No. 433, in page 207, leave out lines 36 and 37.
No. 119, in page 207, line 45, at end insert—
'1974 c. 7. The Local Government Act 1974. Section 8(2) and (3).'.[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Education Reform Bill is a landmark in our education system. Future historians will see the Bill as the turning point, when the country moved forward from a long debate on education to a programme of action to improve the education system— action to improve the quality of education in our schools, colleges, polytechnics and universities; action to raise the standards achieved by pupils and students; action to extend freedom of choice and to enhance the position of parents. It is right, therefore, that the House has now debated the Bill for over 200 hours on the Floor and in Committee. That massive allocation of time marks the significance of the Government's proposals. When it comes back from the House of Lords, it is likely to be the most debated Bill since 1945—

Mr. Straw: It feels like it.

Mr. Baker: I feel as fresh as a daisy. Although I am now moving the Third Reading, I should be happy to move the Second Reading again, but that would give the hon. Gentleman too much of an opportunity.
Since becoming Secretary of State in May 1986, I have visited many excellent schools and been very impressed by the work being done, often in difficult circumstances, by teachers in schools and colleges throughout the country. But too often they have been isolated examples of excellence. Too many of our pupils achieve less than they could and should and less than their counterparts in foreign countries. Nine out of 10 16-year-olds in West Germany get a hauptschule certificate covering German, maths, a foreign language and two other subjects. Fewer than four out of 10 English school leavers attain the equivalent qualification— the certificate of secondary education, grade 4 — in English, maths, a foreign language and one other subject.
As a country, we have been letting too many of our children down. The brightest do not suffer—they can survive — but not all of them are fully stretched and challenged. Too many of the average and below-average are not stretched; they get bored and bunk off as quickly as they can. They do not return. Legislation alone cannot put this right. What it can do is create a framework which focuses the creativity of our professional teachers and taps into the energies and commitment of parents, employers and local communities.
I want to inject into the education service a clear sense of purpose and direction. I know that the expertise, energy and enthusiasm are all there, and I want to release those forces. The central purpose of the Bill is to recreate the


excitement and urgency and to channel the enthusiasm that has gradually ebbed away since the passing of R A Butler's great 1944 Education Act.
The central reform in the Bill is the national curriculum. The 1944 Act does not give parents any clear idea of what they should expect their children to get out of 11 years of compulsory education. But that carefree attitude to content is now a thing of the past and the change has occurred over 10 years. There is a wide measure of agreement that the time has come to introduce a basic school curriculum. Religious education — first among equals—and English, maths and science will be at the centre. In addition, all pupils will study seven other foundation subjects. The Bill does not lay down the amount of time to be spent on those basic subjects. Schools will be able to offer other subjects.
A great deal of contingency work is going ahead so that we can get moving on introducing the core curriculum subjects in primary schools in September 1989. Parents will also know that their children's achievements will be fairly assessed, in a way which helps teachers to get the best out of their pupils and gives parents clear information about what their children know and can do and how well they are progressing.
There are two final but central points that I should like to make about the national curriculum.
First, it will not be the Baker curriculum. I would find it constitutionally unacceptable for the holder of my office to impose his own national curriculum. The Bill builds in the essential checks and balances. Only after the most thorough statutory consultation, centring upon the National Curriculum Council and after the House has approved them, will the new arrangements be introduced into the schools.
Secondly, the national curriculum now embodies a new religious settlement, which assures religious education of its central position in schools without detracting from the proper local arrangements for agreeing religious education syllabuses. I should like to pay tribute to the Church leaders — the Bishop of London for the Church of England, the Bishop of Leeds for the Roman Catholic Church and Mr. Brown of the Methodists— for their help in constructing this new settlement.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State explain whether he has overcome the requirements of the Prime Minister as outlined in that letter?

Mr. Baker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the Black report, which we have debated endlessly. We welcome the broad framework of the report because it establishes a system of assessment and testing at seven, 11, 14 and 16—pencil and paper testing—and the reporting of the results of that assessment and testing so that parents can judge. What the Prime Minister and others are concerned about—I expressed concern about this matter in Committee—is that the system must not become so complex that it becomes burdensome and cannot be introduced. We must be aware of the costs of such a system. The document is now out for consultation and I am sure that all the many interested parties throughout the country will be commenting on it.
With regard to financial delegation, the significance of this part of the Bill for the future of the education service has been highlighted by a shift in terminology.

Increasingly, we hear about the local management of schools. I welcome that; it is better than financial delegation.
The Bill pushes responsibility down the line—to the school, the headteachers and the governors. They will work to get best value out of the resources delegated to them.
Since the Bill was published, the House has had the benefit of an excellent report from Coopers and Lybrand on this subject. That report gives the lie to the allegation that the Bill will sideline the local education authority. As the report says,
the role of the LEA will be fundamentally altered
but
we think"—
that is Coopers and Lybrand—
that the proposals will produce considerable benefit in that they will enable LEAs to focus more attention on questions of major importance without being distracted by having to pay attention to points of detail.
Exactly. Getting involved in decisions that are best taken by those on the spot is a distraction. What is more, it is an annoyance to heads and governors. They will now be able to get on with the job of managing the schools. The LEAs will be able to move out of detailed involvement into strategic management, and that must be right.
Historians who read our debates on these two subjects in Committee will—I hope this is a comfort to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) — see the severe difficulty in which the Opposition found themselves. The Opposition recognise that our proposals for a national curriculum and local management of schools have been very broadly welcomed, within and beyond the education service. I was speaking to the Secondary Heads Association in Reading last Friday night, and it is clear that the secondary heads and primary heads are looking forward to the prospect of local management of schools. The Opposition, therefore, were reduced to sniping at matters of relative detail. They did not divide the Committee on the clauses in question. Could there be any clearer proof that the Bill points the way forward, that it is the Government's policies which form the agenda, and that it is our philosophy of education which commands the stage?
The other key strand woven into the various chapters of the Education Reform Bill is freedom of choice. The provisions for more open enrolment will extend choice, opening the doors of good schools to more parents. The bizarre spectacle of empty desks at popular schools will become a thing of the past.
The Bill will provide wider choice by introducing two new types of school. The city technology college will provide free education for parents who want to give their children a technologically biased education, in colleges with direct financial backing from industry and commerce. The first college will open this September in Solihull; the next in Nottingham in 1989 and more are in the pipeline. The CTC model will add to and enrich the variety of educational provision available in England and Wales.
Grant-maintained schools push the principle of choice further. The Bill gives parents and governors a new opportunity. They will be able to take over the running of their schools, free of the local education authority.
It was interesting that on more open enrolment, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools, the Opposition divided the Committee. That was quite right, because here is the great divide between us. The


Government are for choice, freedom, variety, diversity; pushing individual responsibility to its limits. The Opposition are for planning, allocation and decision-making on behalf of parents. We believe that parents know best and we want them to be able to apply that knowledge. Their right to opt out — it will be their choice; I emphasis that there will be no compulsion—will close the chapter of "take it or leave it" which has crept into local authority-provided schools in this country.
The grant-maintained school means the introduction of competition—with no charge to the customer—into a publicly provided service. Competition for custom, for pupils, is the best self-regulating mechanism for higher standards all round. Those who foresee a divide opening up between successful and "sink" schools ignore the dynamic nature of competition. The LEAs will have to respond to competition and to parental pressure. That can only be good for all parents, whether they exercise their choice to opt out or to stay in.

Mr. Ashdown: Parents, in so far as they have expressed their views through the National Confederation of Parent-Teacher Associations and numerous polls, believe that this will not provide more choice but will put them in a position in which the fortunate will have chosen schools and the rest will be trapped.

Mr. Baker: I have just answered that question; I do not believe that that is true. The Liberal party has had some difficulty in addressing this problem. It is in favour of choice, but not very much : in favour of freedom, but not very much. I can go on repeating that for ever. It encapsulates what passes for political philosophy in the mind of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). He must make up his own mind—

Mr. Ashdown: Sing us another tune.

Mr. Baker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would like to hear me sing it. He and his party must decide whether they believe in trusting the individual. Traditionally, the Liberals always did. We shall see which line the hon. Gentleman will take when it comes to the leadership contest in his party.
The percipient historian will also look at source material other than our Official Reports. Other primary material is revealing about the sea change under way. May I therefore recommend to future historians The Guardian of 23 March. There they will find the honest, forward-looking vision of the hon. Member for Blackburn. As we have two of the campaign managers for the other side of the Labour party here tonight—the hon. Members for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) — I wonder whether they will agree with what the hon. Member for Blackburn said in this important article — [Interruption.] I urge hon. Gentlemen to he calm; this is frightfully good stuff.
A nation of consumers enjoying relatively high living standards becomes literally much more choosy, much more interested in choice and variety.
That is the Brian Gould version of socialism.
The aspirations of choice are now spreading from consumer goods to public service and rightly so.
That is what we are providing — consumer choice through more open enrolment, CTCs and grant-maintained schools. We are witnessing a fundamental shift in attitudes and the knee-jerk opposition to those three things will look increasingly quaint with the years—

Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: The world has moved on; the hon. Member for Blackburn knows it and his problem is that many of his colleagues do not.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his commentary on my article. Will he go on and quote the next part, in which I praised the idea of locally delivered, democratically decided local services, which he will destroy?

Mr. Baker: On the contrary, there is a major role for local authorities as a result of our changes. They will have to decide the amount of money raised locally to provide the services. I praise the hon. Gentleman for his far-seeing vision. I am waiting for his hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch to rise and say that they agree with him right down the line, but they are both silent—

Mr. Bob Cryer: As the Secretary of State invites an intervention, I can hardly resist. He seems mesmerised by leadership contests. Is that because his recent showing has rendered him out of the race in his contest and he will be campaign manager for someone else in the Tory party when it takes place?

Mr. Baker: Such thoughts are absent from my mind. I rather enjoy fly-fishing and the fish rose. The hon. Gentleman said nothing about the issue, however; once again, he and his hon. Friend remain silent. The Gangway represents the great gulf between the hon. Member for Blackburn and his hon. Friends sitting below it. I see that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) is sitting in the Gangway; he must be the floating voter, and we should like to know which way he will go.
I turn now to the provisions for higher education. The Bill marks a new chapter for higher education. We have set an ambitious national target of one in five of 18 to 21-year-olds going into higher education by the turn of the century. The Bill provides the framework to achieve that.
We are setting the polytechnics free of local authority control. Twenty-nine institutions with 181,000 students are responsible for more than half the growth in student numbers since 1979. All hon. Members will agree that that is a credit to the country. They are 21-years-old this year; they have come of age. I am sure that they, and the other major colleges, will prosper under the new Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council.
The universities, too, will have a new funding council —the Universities Funding Council. I was pleased that the universities and the Government were able to work together to clarify the Bill to make quite clear the proper arms-length relationship between Government and the institutions of higher education. Working together, we have been able to make sure that the Bill reflects the Government's original and consistent objective: a most careful limit on the scope for Government involvement in the affairs of independent institutions.
The freedom of the academy is secure. We shall continue to discuss with the universities their request — there is a paradox in this—that the same Government that they do not wish to interfere in their affairs should offer them some means of protecting the freedom of academics from other academics. I am sure that, with the same goodwill that marked our discussions on the first issue, we shall be able to find a way forward on this one, too.

Mr. Dalyell: No Scot was allowed on the Committee —understandably. However, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and a number of others, there was an hour's debate on Wednesday night on the problems of Scottish universities. Did the Secretary of State learn anything from that debate? I have no constituency interest, but Aberdeen and Dundee have a desperate problem. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any cause for hope?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman raises the central issue with which I have already dealt. I am often asked to intervene in the cause of universities, but holders of my office have always traditionally held that we do not intervene in the daily running of, or allocation of funds to, universities. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. We have changed the Bill to ensure that the holder of my office does not intervene and the Universities Funding Council makes these decisions. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether I or the UFC should decide such matters. We believe that it should be the UFC and that Ministers should not intervene, because if they could intervene in such matters they could also intervene in all sorts of other ways to direct funding according to their whim and in favour of particular subjects. The House should not give my office that power.

Dr. Keith Hampson: All Conservative Members welcome what the Secretary of State has said about his powers in higher education and we all hope he will be able to deliver what he has promised on academic freedom. When they have independence, the funding councils must be brought together from each side of the boundary divide. We do not want independence that shoots off on diverging tramlines rather than joining in one coherent organised system.

Mr. Baker: The immediate task is to ensure that the Polytechnic and Colleges Funding Council, which is a new body for which we have already appointed the chairman — Sir Ronald Dearing — and chief executive — Mr. William Stubbs—moves into operation and fulfils the important function of dealing with the 80 to 90 funding institutions, some of which are polytechnics and others colleges of higher education. The council will have its work cut out to ensure that it gets a proper control and allocation system going. It is right to have two funding councils. If something different develops in the future, that is something for the future.
One of the most encouraging things—this does not divide the parties—is that we are all committed to the expansion of higher education in our country. In the past seven years there has been a substantial expansion —180,000 more students. We have set the ambitious target of 50,000 more in the lifetime of this Parliament and one in five 18 to 21-year-olds by the end of the century. That will require a great deal of dedication and effort by the universities, polytechnics and colleges.
We are also keen that the further education colleges — the unsung providers for hundreds of thousands of students of so many courses meeting employers' needs—should benefit from the breath of freedom. They too will have their budgets delegated to them and, with greater representation for business men and women on their governing bodies, I am in no doubt that they will become even more responsive to the needs of their local communities.
I shall now come to ILEA. For too long schools in inner London, particularly secondary schools, have been producing poor results at high cost. I do not want to repeat the earlier debate. For too long we have waited for ILEA to reform itself. That reform is for ever just about to happen but it never comes. The Government have worked from the principle that local people will get a better service from their local council than from the remote and bureaucratic ILEA. The positive response to our original proposals has led us to enshrine in the Bill the principle of devolution of education responsibilities to every borough.
Taken with the other measures in the Bill, I believe that parents in London can be confident that the boroughs will provide an effective education service. All the boroughs should now get on with preparations for 1990.

Mr. Tom Cox: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. He may catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
The spur of competition between boroughs — from schools which opt out — is the best mechanism for a flourishing education service. It will work better than administrative planning from county hall. That is good news for pupils, parents, teachers and employers of inner London.
As a student of history, I tend to recoil from instant history, but on ILEA I am prepared to hazard a prophecy. My judgment is that ILEA will be missed by Londoners. They will miss it as much as they miss the unlamented and already forgotten GLC.
This is a major piece of legislation and is built to last. It has been subjected to careful scrutiny. The Government have listened carefully to constructive criticism, and the record shows our considered responses to deeply felt concerns about certain aspects of our proposals. I am glad that we have been able to look at the difficult and important issue of pupils with special needs. I am also glad to have been able to reach a settlement with the universities and the Churches—an academic and clerical concordat. In one important respect the Bill remains the Bill we introduced on 20 November last year : we have not abandoned any of the principles on which the Government were elected in June.
The Bill is a charter for better education. It will release and focus the energies of head teachers, their staff and governors. It will increase parental involvement and choice. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Straw: I want to begin this final debate on at least this part of the Bill by thanking my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who served with me on the Committee. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). No one can doubt his assiduity and his commitment to what he believes in, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he fought against the Bill.
The Secretary of State spoke about the great Butler Act. For the first time that Act provided for some equality of opportunity in education. It provided for education to be available to all on the basis of need and not on the basis of wealth. The Labour party implemented the 1944 Act and, with the help of many people outside our party, including many people in the Conservative party, we improved upon it in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s


with the development of comprehensive schools. When she was Secretary of State for Education, the Prime Minister closed more grammar schools and secured the opening of more comprehensives than any Secretary of State before or since. We have to thank her for that.
Comprehensive schools cater for 85 per cent. of children in the maintained state sector. The comprehensive system has been an outstanding success, especially where it has been allowed to work properly. A study by Edinburgh university paid for by the Scottish Education Department made clear that in Scotland in many boroughs and counties controlled by Conservatives or by Labour or with no overall control comprehensive education is alive and working and is far better than the system that went before it.
It is a testament to the success of comprehensivisation that no Tory authority has been able to turn back the clock. Only two have tried, Solihull and Redbridge, but both failed.
It is because the Secretary of State and the Right wing of the Tory party know about the resilience of the idea of comprehensives and know that it has worked that they have not had the guts to attack the idea head on. They do not have the guts to say that what they really want and what they seek through the Bill is the reintroduction of selection. They want to see the classification of children from an early age into some as successes but a great many as failures. They want to see the reinforcement of class of divisions by which the few get a decent education while the rest receive a monocultural training. That is the reality. The Government wish to reintroduce selection by the back door and to recreate educational divisions. Opting out and open admissions have been deliberately designed to disrupt and divide the state provision of education.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of Tory voters would struggle against the reintroduction of the 11-plus? Their children do not want it.

Mr. Straw: That is exactly the experience in Redbridge and Solihull, both of which are Tory areas and both of which rejected plans by Right wingers in the Conservative party. The Prime Minister has said that she wants to see a return to Victorian values, and the country is getting that with a vengeance in the Bill. The spirit of Gradgrind lives and is to be found in many pages of the Bill.
The Bill is unlikely ever to improve education. If it was, we would enthusiastically support the whole of it. Instead, it may damage standards and reduce opportunity and choice. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister preach parent power. We had another example of that in the debate when we heard about power to the people. There is a most extraordinary contradiction between the Secretary of State's rhetoric and the reality.
When we first got the Bill on 20 November we discovered that there were 175 new powers of central control contained in its 147 clauses. Today the Bill has grown by a third. Fifty-one clauses have been added with the result that the powers of central control have more than doubled. The Bill now contains 366 powers of central control, examples of which are contained on virtually every page. Not one clause has been inserted without a new power. The Bill has become a monster out of control. That is not only because of the Secretary of State's dangerous

centralising tendencies, but results more from a failure to think the Bill through, to take the time that Rab Butler took to consider his measures, and to consult widely.
If there is one criticism that we and many others make of the Secretary of State it is that he is hyperactive. He never goes into matters in any depth but bolts from one issue to another. We have seen him in Committee studying pristine pages of notes on clauses or the Black report and have noted his marks of surprise when he realised what he was reading.
I have followed with close interest the Secretary of State's career. We discovered earlier the distress that I was caused by the discovery that he is now Mr. Two Per Cent. I was intrigued to find in the reference books that there are 10 blank years between the time in 1958 when he finished his period as an artillery instructor to the Libyan army and 28 March 1968, 20 years ago today, when he entered this House. I have not been able to fill in all the gaps. I have filled in one of them, because he worked for a time as an assistant to the chief executive of the tailors Aquascutum.
The most significent part of the Secretary of State's biographical details was omitted from all the great reference works, because he worked for a time as a consultant to Avon cosmetics. That taught him to smile. I would not have minded if he had worked as a consultant to Brylcreem, because single handedly he has been keeping Brylcreem alive. He wears it not only on his head but on his lips. That is the clue to his whole political approach because he believes that everything, however ugly or unacceptable, can always be disguised by cosmetics. He has two problems. The first is that the cosmetics mask has come off. The more we have examined the Bill, the less we have liked it, just as the more the public have examined it, the less they have liked it. The second is that he has fallen into a major marketing error that he should have learned about when he worked for Avon and Aquascutum. It is that anybody who tries to market two brands at the same time will confuse the public. That is his problem because the Tory party has been trying to flog the Baker brand and the Thatcher brand. Unless there is a clear brand image, it is not possible to convince the consumers about the validity or efficacy of the product. We all know the Secretary of State's problem.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman should tell us about the Labour party.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to tell him about the Labour party. I am dealing with his problems and the Bill. One of the few problems that he shares with Butler is dealing with the Conservative party. I looked in Rab Butler's biography at the reference to the Conservative party conference. He said:
We have started the autumn with the Conservative Conference. I attended the whole of yesterday and found myself more out of sympathy with Conservative principles than I have been for some time, although the tendency has been growing. The audience would have been a credit to the Zoo or wild regions of the globe were they populated by mouldy and unattractive fauna. No ray of enlightenment shone on a single face except for the shining pate of Sir Henry Page Croft, who has the merit of looking fairly well washed.
The Secretary of State still has to put up with the zoo of the Conservative party, but the problem has got worse because the inmates of the zoo have got out and taken control of the party and the headquarters. They have left the Secretary of State, almost literally, up a tree.
There are parts of the Bill — those on the national curriculum and testing—which could be made to work were the Secretary of State seriously to seek agreement from every educational interest. There has been some support for the principle of an agreed national curriculum, but not for the principle of an imposed national syllabus which applies only to some children. There has been some agreement that there should be regular testing of children so that the parents, and the child if old enough, can discover how it is getting on, for diagnostic testing, but not for the kind of competitive testing that sets child against child and class against class—a system that is in the mind of the Prime Minister and may be in the mind of the Secretary of State.
Leaving these aside, the public have a great deal to fear from this Bill, especially from the free market nonsense of the Bill by which children become commodities to be left at the mercy of the market. The Secretary of State referred to the fact that we have spent 200 hours in Committee and on the Floor of the House discussing this Bill, during the course of which 2,004 amendments have been moved—probably another post-war record. By no means all our efforts have been in vain. The Government have had to make 113 concessions, some large and some small, as we have exposed varying holes in the Bill. The time scale that the Secretary of State had in mind has changed. It will be years before testing, the national curriculum and local financial management come into force. One thing which is certain is that it will be many years after the Secretary of State has left his present office, whether that is for higher office or no office at all.
There have been important concessions on special education and on the universities, but much remains in the Bill which is offensive, authoritarian and unworkable. The greatest charge that we make is of wasted opportunities. We proposed, in terms no different from the commitment that the Prime Minister gave in 1972 in her White Paper, that there should be nursery education for every child who needed it. That was rejected by the Government, to their eternal shame. We proposed major reforms of education for 16 to 19-year-olds which would open up access to opportunities, and that was rejected. We proposed a report on education maintenance allowances, and that was rejected. We made proposals for the integration of education and training, and they were rejected. We made proposals to raise the morale and standing of teachers and instead teachers have to put up with continuing abuse from the Secretary of State and a failure to understand the great contribution that the overwhelming majority of them make to the education of our children.
The Bill places in the hands of the Conservative Secretary of State powers over schools, teachers, local authorities, colleges, polytechnics and universities, powers over what is taught and thought and powers over children, students and the very people whom he was supposed to free—the parents. All these powers have been imposed in the name of freedom and choice. The ideology of this Bill offends the one-nation Conservatism of Rab Butler as much as it offends the rest of our people. It is a desperate, wasted opportunity which is likely to fail to improve standards of education, create real choice of opportunity or repair the damage and neglect of the past nine years. We shall oppose it in the Lobbies tonight.

Mr. Raison: I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the extraordinary skill and geniality with which he has conducted the passage of the Bill. He has run rings round the Opposition, but he has also shown a flexibility that has been both wise and constructive. We all know the examples. The way in which he has responded to the concerns of the churches and the universities are two notable examples. On top of that geniality and skill is the fact that the Bill contains several important advances for education. There is most agreement about a national curriculum, on which there have been major gains. I was one of those who was reluctant to come round to the idea of a national curriculum. It was quite alien to all that we used to talk about, but the anxiety about the quality of our education, which has spread over the years, justified that.
I am sorry that I did not have the chance to persuade my right hon. Friend that history should be one of the top four subjects—

Dr. Hampson: British history.

Mr. Raison: Preferably British history —but but I hope that that will be pursued in the other place. What we have on the curriculum and testing is of real value. Testing has to be about finding out what the child, the class, the teachers and the school are capable of. Whether one calls it diagnostic or not, I do not particularly mind. Testing is a question not just of producing league tables but of making education more effective, to the benefit of the children, whom the whole thing is about.
The widening of choice and financial delegation must be right, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the transfer of polytechnics. This is not a reproach to the local authorities. They have done the job of parents remarkably well and deserve to be proud of the fact that their children have now grown up and moved on to the adult stages where the universities are to be found. They will continue to make a major contribution to education.
There are still important things to be done in the legislative process, but, more particularly, in the stage which follows that—when the Bill is translated into action. Something must be done about ILEA, which has already been discussed today. It is important to recognise that many of the people working for ILEA work hard in difficult circumstances. While ILEA's policies have gone astray with the lunacies that are there, I cannot forget that in our schools, including secondary schools, there are people who respond to a tough job with a great deal of conscientiousness.
I am sure that, in the period to come, we shall recognise that and everything that we do will be seen as constructive. The point that we need to keep the museums and music classes, which are such a good feature of London, has been adequately made, and I have no doubt about that. It is evident that the process of preparing and implementing the development plan will require great sensitivity. I was encouraged by the response of my hon. Friend the Minister of State when she was talking about the possibility of getting authorities to act together. We have to think about grouped authorities, joint boards, informal mechanisms and co-operation. All those things may need to be filled out more fully in the other place, although my hon. Friend made a good start this afternoon.
Furthermore, there should be a clearly designated Minister for ILEA during this difficult period to come


—somebody who can give leadership and pay the enormous amount of attention that will be required during the period when the development plans are formulated and then translated into action.
There is still something to be done in two particular sectors. The first is universities. We now have a much better situation than when the Bill started. Universities are pleased with the way in which things have gone. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the last step in guaranteeing academic freedom—a subject that was debated in the House a few days ago. It would not cost anything and it is possible to find a formula for it, so I hope that we shall see that in the other place.
We must dispel the doubts about grant-maintained schools that some of us had when the whole process began. Essentially, we are talking about the fear that the schools which do not opt out, and which get left behind, could become a demoralised rump. Nothing is further from my right hon. Friend's mind, but it will require enormous care and attention in future when decisions are made about opting out to ensure that we think about the interests not only of those schools opting out, but of those schools that do not opt out, as they are equally important.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers on the Bill. What is being done is enormously worth while and I look forward to the completion of this great epic.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the Secretary of State will listen carefully to his right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on the question of opted-out schools.
There is a paradox about the Bill. Although everyone must support the Government's aims, the means that they have chosen have been regarded by almost every respected voice in education — whether parents, teachers, educationists or academics — as deeply damaging. Although the Government rightly identify the problems to be addressed in education, the solutions that they put forward in the Bill will be more damaging than the problems that they seek to correct.
That is why I and many other people regard the Bill as probably the most dangerous Bill brought forward by any Government for the last 20 or 30 years. The damage that it will do to our education system and to the future of our children will be felt for years to come. Perhaps even more important, it is a potential threat to the nature of pluralism in our democracy.
The Secretary of State tells us that the Bill has been debated for longer than any other Bill in Committee. It has been debated for about 200 hours. That is not because it is a good Bill, but because it is a bad Bill. We have had to bring forward amendment after amendment, and the Government have had to accept many of those and draft many of their own. They have persistently failed to explain their purpose or put forward their arguments in a convincing way. The Bill was constructed on the back of a fag packet during the last general election. It was hastily conceived and ill-thought out when it was brought to the House. It was botched up and patched up in Committee, and we pass it incomplete, in many areas largely undebated and ramshackle, to the House of Lords.
The Bill is built, as no other of which I know, on what I can only describe as Orwellian newspeak. The Secretary of State tells us that he is offering choice, but, in reality,

he is offering choice only for the few and the privileged at the expense of those left behind. He tells us that the Bill is about freedom, but it achieves that by putting more power to control, direct and insist on uniformity in the hands of the Secretary of State.
There is something Marxist about the Secretary of State's arguments, because, time and again, he has said, "I must have all the power in my hands so that it can he allowed to wither away." This is determinism. It says, "We will take the power, but it will all wither away and we will hand it out again." That has never happened and it will not happen under this Bill. The power vested in the hands of the Secretary of State will be carefully preserved, used and handed on to his successors. It will fall into the hands of people other than members of the Conservative party.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), in a debate on academic freedom the other day, said that one of the problems was that the Secretary of State did not have tenure and that that did not allow him to be as free as he might like to be. One of the problems is that the Government believe they have tenure and that they will never be removed and, therefore, that the powers will never fall into other people's hands. That is the basis for the arrogance behind the Bill.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I do not subscribe to the idea that anyone should have tenure, least of all Ministers. I find the hon. Gentleman's proposition extraordinary. Is he saying that Karl Marx would favour more open enrolment in schools and prefer the elective system for governors that we are going to have? Is he saying that Karl Marx would favour opting out of schools and the choice of individuals exercised wherever they are in the education system? The hon. Gentleman has not thought through any coherent philosophy for the Liberal party.

Mr. Ashdown: rose—

Mr. Baker: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He is giving way to me. He must learn his place. He is confused.
It is a travesty to say that we are being centralist. We are dispersing power. The hon. Gentleman does not trust the people who disperse power to him.

Mr. Ashdown: Marx and Lenin would have agreed that one takes 182 new powers to give freedom to the people. That is what the Secretary of State claims. His rhetoric about using those powers to give freedom will be seen to be as hollow and as sham as those made by people in the state-controlled countries of eastern Europe. It is always done in the name of freedom, just as the Secretary of State is doing this in the name of freedom. He knows perfectly well that the basis of that movement has always been, "Give us the power and we will hand it back," but it has never happened and it will not happen now.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman must forgive me if I do not give way. The Secretary of State told me that he was making an intervention, but it turned out be a mini speech.
The Bill has been founded on ideology rather than good sense and has been informed throughout by a sense of vindictiveness against teachers, local government, local education authorities, ILEA and all those tribal enemies of the Conservative party. That is what underpins the Bill. Those three items on the hidden agenda that we identified


on Second Reading have shown up more nakedly in Committee than I would ever have imagined possible. The secret aims of the Bill are to diminish the power of local government, to centralise the power over education in the hands of the Secretary of State and to reinforce privilege in our education system.
I have spoken of the damage that the Bill will do to education in the future, but that is not the only reason why I oppose the Bill. I repeat the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn, who said that one of the reasons for opposing the Bill is the immense lost opportunity that it presents. It calls itself an Education Reform Bill. How can it be an Education Reform Bill when it does not even address the question of pre-school education, despite the fact that everybody agrees that advancing towards more pre-school education is essential for our education needs in the future? How can it be an Education Reform Bill when it does not put an extra penny into education, despite the fact that education is so desperately underresourced? How can it be an Education Reform Bill when it does nothing positive about the role of teachers in education, despite the fact that teachers have been demoralised and discredited persistently by the Government? How can it be an Education Reform Bill when it does nothing to increase the participation in higher and further education, despite the fact that Britain has a disgracefully low record in participation in both those areas? How can it be called an Education Reform Bill when it does nothing about adult education, despite the fact that in the future we shall need to see an expanded adult education system in Britain?
We need an Education Reform Bill that will provide more flexibility. This Bill will provide a straitjacket and cut out innovation in the curriculum. We need an Education Reform Bill that will provide more choice within the system. This Bill will provide choice only between institutions in a way that damages families and disrupts the education communities. We need an Education Reform Bill that will bring together education and training in a single, cohesive, co-ordinated system. This Bill builds barriers and separates education and training from each other in a way that will be damaging in the future.
So much could be done by the Bill, but it does none of that. We should be constructing an education system which is flexible for the future. This Bill reconstructs the old inflexibilities and injustices of the past. The Bill provides for central control by the Government. It will plant party politics in the heart of every school and every governing body on the issue of opting out. It will be a charter for activists in the future.
What is most damaging is that we will have a system that is increasingly divided—a divided education system serving an increasingly divided country. As a result of the Bill we shall have schools for the chosen and schools for the trapped. We shall see choice for the privileged and "like it or lump it" for the rest. We shall have freedom for the few, and state conformity for the remainder. This is a bad and dangerous Bill. It is dangerous not just for our education system, but for the health of democracy and for the future of our children.

Mr. Madel: I believe that this welcome Bill should be seen in parallel with the huge changes in the examination system that will result with the birth of the GCSE in about seven weeks' time.
I believe that there are two important links between the Bill as it now is and the new exam system. Parents will want to perceive that the attainment tests of children at specified ages are helping those children and are relevant to their eventual examinations at GCSE. Second, the Bill and the new examination system have considerable staffing implications not just for the teachers, but for the examining staff, secretarial staff and back-up staff. Without such staff the Bill and the new examination system will not work in harmony.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done with regard to flexibility in the curriculum. My right hon. Friend has rightly stressed the need for a modern foreign language. I believe that that should lead to non-legislative reform and development of the teaching of languages. I believe that the way is now clear for the establishment of language centres where the medium of instruction is the foreign language taught in the curriculum. That could be a way of attracting more language teachers into the education service. It could also bring schools together and provide welcome experiment and development regarding an extremely important part of the curriculum.
The Government have rightly laid stress on the training of heads and deputy heads. Much of the responsibility for implementing the Bill will fall on them. As a result of the Bill I hope that regional centres will be set up for training. I hope that those centres will make full use of what industry can offer with regard to management training for heads, especially as there will now be such an overlap between those heads and the managers of industries.
I believe that it would make sense to establish an umbrella body to stimulate management development policies within local education authorities. The coordinated provision of such a body should make full use of the many existing business schools. It is also essential for heads that governors are trained. The leaflet from the Department of Education asks:
What qualifications do school governors need?
It goes on to say that training is available.
At present schools simply do not have the people with the technical competence to judge what is a good buy with regard to high technology equipment or maintenance agreements. That is something that is dear to my right hon. Friend's heart because he got the country to concentrate on information technology. The increasing use of the education support grants, help from the Open University and the links with industry that I have suggested should lead to a vital improvement in the training of governors without which the Bill will not work properly.
With regard to grant-maintained schools, I believe that the challenge is for the LEA to see that its relationship with its schools is in good order. Whether schools do or do not opt out depends on whether there is peaceful co-existence between county hall and the schools for which it is responsible. It should be remembered that if pupils are expelled from a grant-maintained school the responsibility then passes to the LEA. I do not see why an LEA should pay for the education of a pupil expelled from such a school. I do not believe that the LEA would want to put that pupil into one of its schools. Such a pupil would need


some form of home tuition, which is expensive, and I do not believe that it would be asking too much for it to be directly funded from the Department of Education and Science.
A considerable time will elapse before the full effects of the Bill are felt. In common with many other things that the Government have done or are doing, this is a major upheaval. There is a great reliance within the education system on teachers and we desperately need a full commitment from them to make the Bill work. The Government have been in power for almost 10 years. Certainly they are a reforming Government, sometimes a restless Government. When the Bill is implemented, I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department will consider educational institutions and simply use the apt saying, "If it isn't broken, don't mend it."

Mr. John Fraser: There are many things in the Bill that disturb me, but I speak against it on Third Reading most passionately, bitterly and feelingly because of the abolition of ILEA.
I cannot help but remark on the opening speech of the Secretary of State who has brought to the golden principles of education the ideas of competition, choice and the market philosophy that are currently endorsed by the Conservative party.
In my borough of Lambeth people theoretically have choice about the type of transport they use. Theoretically they have choice about the type of housing they get and about the type of health service they receive. They are supposed to have choice in other matters as well, but in reality choice is determined by the resources available to them. The effective operation of the market should be about where one applies what one already has, not where one acquires that which one does not already have. For that reason, a system of choice will not work in a borough such as Lambeth.
I believe that the proposals in the Bill are a vandalistic and malicious attack upon a system that has served the less-endowed parts of London well. The attack on ILEA is an attack not on failure but on success. It is an attack upon an authority that would like to give to its pupils, particularly in boroughs such as mine, the same type of expenditure and advantages that the Secretary of State would like to bestow upon his children. ILEA would like to bestow upon the children of inner London the same type of advantages that the Government want to bestow upon privileged children under the assisted places scheme. I believe that what will be constructed in inner London will be a first class and second class system of education.
If the Government want to see how the market operates, how choice and competition operate in the provision of education, they should go to any large American city. They should look at the schools for whites on the periphery of the city, guarded with people with rifles, that are provided for one set of children and they should also look at the slum, sink schools guarded with steel doors. The teachers rush out of those schools at one minute past the end of classes. The Government would then see the enormous contrast between the opportunities available to the privileged and less-privileged in the American cities as a result of the exercise of choice.

Mr. Tony Banks: That will happen over here.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, indeed.

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I believe that in debates such as this giving way and interventions are a self-indulgence that should not be afforded to other people who want to speak.
The problems will be made worse in London as a result of the imposition of the poll tax and changes in local government finance that are intended to coincide on 1 April 1990. The average contribution of a ratepayer aged over 18 in my borough is currently £270 a year. Under the poll tax, the average contribution will be £547 per person a year, double the existing rate. If we consider the way in which that figure has been calculated — or probably miscalculated as a result of a failure to understand what has been spent under capital rather than under revenue —it is likely that contributions will rise to about £650 per person or more as a result of the abolition of the ILEA.
That means that we will impose a terrible choice on the poorer people in boroughs such as Lambeth, Southwark and Hackney between the impoverishment of parents for the time being through very high rates and the impoverishment of their children in future. That is the awful choice and dilemma which the abolition of ILEA represents and it is a terrible choice between the interests of the parents and the interests of the child.
Of course, such choices will exist in other aspects of the poll tax with the 20 per cent. contribution. A mother will have to choose between sending her child to school without shoes or a coat and paying the 20 per cent tax to the local authority. This Bill will add to the disadvantages of parents and to the denial of opportunity to the less advantaged in inner London.
Even worse is likely to occur if the Government impose their grant-related expenditure assessments on the children of inner London. We already know that the Government intend to impose a further reduction of expenditure of about 30 per cent. on ILEA. That means having only seven teachers instead of 10 or seven nursery school assistants in place of 10. That will happen if the Government embark on their present course of action. However, if they really want to drive boroughs like Lambeth down to the level of GREAs, that would mean a cut in resources of 44 per cent. in my borough. That would practically halve the staffing levels in my schools and career services.
Boroughs such as Lambeth, Hackney and Southwark are presented on the one hand with a diminution of resources for education caused by the way in which money is to be raised under the poll tax and on the other hand the diminution of resources by orders of Government through poll tax capping or the present capping arrangements for ILEA. That is not much of a choice or an operation of the market for my constituents.
The Bill will leave my constituents in despair. During the passage of the Bill I have attended many meetings in my constituency and in Streatham. I have attended meetings where as many as 500 people were present, yet I rarely saw more than one or two hands raised in support of the Bill. Very often no hands were raised in support. The Government are imposing an enormous financial constraint upon the resources available for children in boroughs like Lambeth.
The Bill may be all right for boroughs like Westminster and Kensington. Some boroughs have as many as 10 adults per child at school compared with six adults per


child at school in Lambeth. If we want to expand education in Kensington or Westminster, there are more adults from whom resources can be gained to support the children. There is also a wealthier and more affluent base from which to draw the money and the resources for education can be increased in the more privileged parts of London without any mishap. However, if we want to expand education in Lambeth, Hackney or Southwark, every 1 per cent. added to poll tax expenditure will increase the poll tax contribution by 3 per cent. That means that the children, their parents and the poor will become the hostages of local authorities.
In every local government debate that I have attended in the House my borough and the other boroughs to which I have referred have been vilified for their incompetence. The Department of the Environment wants to take away their housing and to privatise their services. It describes them as overmanned and overspending. Yet, for this Bill, they are regarded as competent to take over education functions. The consequence of those boroughs taking over those functions with the constraints on finance will be that we will preserve a first class education service in inner London for some children and a second class service for others.
Under this Bill, the Government are welding more bars on to the inner city cage to prevent the children whom I represent from escaping to begin to develop themselves. There are two ways in this world in which we hold on to power: through inherited wealth or through education. The chance for the people whom I represent to acquire and hold power is being denied by the Bill.

Mr. James Pawsey: I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) will forgive me if I do not pursue his remarks too closely. He referred to welding bars on cages—but I think that it would be more appropriate to talk about the opening of doors of cages and admitting freedom of choice.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree that this is one of the largest and most important Bills to have been discussed in the House in recent years. It will have far-reaching consequences and its impact will be felt well into the next century. I believe that it will stand favourable comparison with the measure introduced by Rab Butler, the Education Act 1944.
Concern about education is not new and is not a figment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's imagination. It was Lord Callaghan of Cardiff who started the great education debate about 12 years ago when he was Prime Minister. Justification for the Bill can be found in the recently published statistics, which show that 6 million of our fellow countrymen have difficulty in reading, writing and doing simple arithmetic. That is after 11 years of compulsory schooling.
The Bill will do much to improve the quality and standard of state education. I have been concerned, however, about the lack of reference to religious education and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has accepted the need for change. The reference to religious education in the national curriculum is welcome. It will do much to put the collective mind of the churches at ease.
Secondly, I am concerned about the lack of reference to discipline in schools. Hon. Members will be aware that learning best takes place in a reasonably disciplined environment. It is clear that discipline in some of the nation's schools is suffering to a marked extent. I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that he is setting up an inquiry. I trust that it will be wide-ranging and will report early. If it is prevented by its terms of reference from discussing corporal punishment, I hope that it will come forward with some viable options.
The Bill increases the power and responsibility of parents and requires them to play a much greater part in the education of their children and in the running of their children's schools. This is a major step forward, for generally parents know best what is right for their children. Parents will do much to ensure that the education of their children has a greater relevance to the world of work. The involvement of parents is essential to the success of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity that is presented on Third Reading to reinforce that fact. Incidentally, I can commend the leaflets which have been produced by the Department of Education and Science that seek to encourage more members of the public to come forward to act as governors.
I refer briefly to the most controversial measure in the Bill. It is my firm view that relatively few schools will decide to opt out of local authority control, but those that do will exercise a far greater influence than their numbers suggest. They will be used as a benchmark against which other schools in the area might be judged.
The schools that opt for grant-maintained status will be of the utmost importance in certain inner city areas where education provision is subordinate to the teaching of dogma. These are the areas, where education is not preparing children for adult life, these are the areas where grant-maintained schools will come into their own. The problem, however, is that in these areas parents, for various reasons, may be diffident about coming forward in support of the proposal.
In my view, my right hon. Friend should set up directly as part of his Department, or alternatively by means of a trust, a group that can provide the expertise that is necessary to guide parents into the establishment of grant-maintained status schools. It should be available thereafter to ensure that grant-maintained status schools do not fail for want of expertise. It will be necessary for those seeking grant-maintained status to overcome a number of hurdles, for the process starts, not ends, with the secret postal ballot of parents. If the ballot produces a majority in favour, the governors will then be in a position to apply to the Secretary of State for grant-maintained status. If only a relatively small number of parents are involved in the ballot, producing only a small vote in favour, that will be taken carefully into account by the Secretary of State. He will additionally be bound to listen to the majority of parents, to governors, to trustees where appropriate, to the local education authority, to head teachers, to staff, and, not least, to the local community. I have some difficulty in believing that any Secretary of State would approve an application for grant-maintained status if faced with such an overwhelming body of opinion.
Grant-maintained status will, however, provide a fail-safe procedure for parents. If they are so alienated from the local education authority that they wish to opt out, it


is surely better that they do so. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel).
Earlier, I said that the Bill increased the power and responsibility of parents. However, education is a partnership, and the other principal partners are the teachers. I have said before in the House, and I say again now, that the overwhelming majority of our teachers are dedicated both to their profession and to the children in their charge. My right hon. Friend will understand that for this radical legislation to succeed we require the good will of the teacher force. I am not certain that we have given that aspect the emphasis that it warrants.
I am aware of the substantial pay increases that teachers have recently received. If, however, they are to regain their former status in society, they will require adequate remuneration, and an appreciation of their work —which is arguably among the most important in our society.
There will be a major transfer of power and responsibility from local education authorities to parents, head teachers and governing bodies, which will require heads and governors to have a better understanding of their powers and duties. That, in turn, must mean that they require more training than is currently the position. Head teachers and their deputies must be better trained than at present, with additional emphasis being given to management skills.
The Bill is both imaginative and dynamic. My right hon. Friend is to be commended on bringing forward proposals that he knew would be controversial. He recognised the problems, and has come up with the answers. I have no doubt that these measures will receive the support in the Lobby tonight that they will receive in the country tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall endeavour to be brief. I have not spoken frequently on education, because, as the House will appreciate, hon. Members develop a variety of interests. I feel, however, that I should say a few words, because I have quite a lot of professional qualifications. I was a senior teacher for a long time; I was chairman of governors; I was an examiner when we introduced CSE, and I have remained in close touch with education. But I am also a parent. Those things qualify me to make a short contribution to the debate. However, I did not serve on the Standing Committee, and I should like to pay tribute to the efforts of my right hon. and hon. Friends who secured some amendment of the Bill.
A moment ago, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that the Bill might be an historic construction. If he considers the history of education, he will see that educationally and socially significant landmarks have been provided by education legislation—for instance, the Elementary Education Act 1870, and Butler's 1944 Act. Those Acts were symbolic and significant; they marked and fitted education within the society and context of its time. This Bill—the Baker Act, as it will become—will not mark the optimism of 1944, but will be seen as a turning point in the moral and social decline — and, for most people, the economic decline—with which areas such as mine are faced.
The Secretary of State compared our schools with German schools. But did he compare the level of provision in German schools and British schools? If he did, he would

perhaps understand why there are certain deficiencies in secondary education, but it would have been better if he had gone to see success in British schools rather than cart himself around to look at schools abroad. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that the improvement in standards in primary schools has been demonstrable.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The hon. Gentleman claims that the comparison is not fair. We spend approximately — within 0·1 per cent. — the same amount of GNP on education as Germany, so the comparison is fair. The hon. Gentleman knows that a country has only its GNP, and we must stimulate the growth of our GNP. Our education reforms will do much to stimulate that growth.

Mr. Hardy: I do not disagree with the Secretary of State, but over the past 10 years the German Administration has seen its GNP increase by an amount that we could have equalled and, therefore, we could have properly funded British education.
Conservative Members often indulge in a canard about the standards of British education. When I started teaching in a secondary school, about 20 of the 49 boys in my class were completely illiterate or had a reading age below six. If I went to the same school today—it is not in my constituency—I should find scarcely any children below that reading age. There may be parts of some of our larger cities in which difficulties arise, but over the past 20 or 30 years there has been an enormous improvement in the standard of teaching reading. Unfortunately, one will not read of that in the national media. The Secretary of State has been looking for the blackest possible picture to serve the cause of political greed and to apply market forces to the British education scene.
I have been very angry since a recent Question Time when I told the Minister of State that I hoped that, if the national curriculum were developed, it would he better funded, better founded and arranged than the GCSE. The hon. Lady had the audacity to say that the GCSE was one of the finest funded educational developments in British history. I have kept in close touch with the GCSE's development in my constituency, partly because I was an examiner, partly because I have a remaining professional interest and partly because my son is in the first year of GCSE — the year group that the Government have sacrificed in the cause of political dogma. There is not a teacher in a secondary school in Britain who could disagree with me when I say that what additional funding there was came far too late. Enormous anxiety was caused in our schools because they were started on this course without proper preparation. The first year was over in some subjects before a decent book was available and before the syllabus had been properly established. Yet the Minister of State had the gall to tell the House and the country that we were well prepared.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is my hon. Friend aware of the difficulties of children who are now taking their GCSE? I have had to buy for my (laughter, who is in the Strangers' Gallery, her French, German and biology books because the Government did not make available enough resources for GCSE in the first year. As my hon. Friend has said, those students are guinea pigs.

Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend is fortunate. He can afford to buy those books, whereas other parents cannot. My hon. Friend is fortunate also because, apparently, the books were available.
In some subjects the syllabus had not even been established when the first year of the course was two thirds of the way through. Teachers and parents will long remember this example of fecklessness, but they will remember the Bill much longer. Unlike the Butler Act, which marked the advance and confidence of Britain in the post-war period, this legislation marks a period of political and social decline, in which the Secretary of State has played his shameful part.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: All I should like to say on the speech of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is that the Bill does mark a turn by bringing back the importance of examinations. That is one issue on which employers will judge those who come to them for jobs.
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) that it is important that one Minister is given responsibility for seeing through everything that arises from the Bill in terms of the Inner London education authority. We saw the difficulties over the abolition of the GLC when responsibility was split between various Ministers. Things were not sufficiently easy for them and there were difficulties.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill, in particular the abolition of ILEA, because I am one of the very few people who, from the inception of ILEA, felt that it was wholly wrong. When I gave evidence to the Herbert committee back in 1960 I said that the London boroughs were perfectly capable of running their own education. When the Herbert committee reported, it made it clear that there were different views on the information that was available. The tragedy was that in the other place influence was exercised which created the Inner London education authority which has been a disaster.
I should like to warn my right hon. Friend that there is now the same sort of scare campaign about the abolition of ILEA as there was about the abolition of the GLC. The same lies are being told, and the same fears are being whipped up among parents. Hundreds of letters are being written at the behest of tutors in adult education saying that adult education is at risk as a result of the legislation. That is a complete fabrication. The tragedy is that people have not learnt that the stories put to them by the Labour party are without foundation. Most hon. Members remember the horde of postcards sent to us by pensioners, sadly at their own expense, saying, "Save our bus passes" when there was never any danger of bus passes being removed when the GLC was abolished. I urge my right hon. Friend to be robust in repeatedly producing information that will kill that.
I hope that from the beginning there will be more cooperation between the Inner London education authority and the boroughs that will receive the powers than there was when the GLC was abolished, because if there is not co-operation it will harm only the children.
I was disturbed to receive a letter dated 23 March from the Secondary Heads Association saying:
Of course there are criticisms of the ILEA. Headteachers would share some of these. There are examples of wasteful use of resources, of too much policy direction from the centre and of over-bureaucratic procedures. Nevertheless there is an immense wealth of experience in the ILEA of running an inner

city education service. This contrasts starkly with the complete lack of such experience in the inner London boroughs.
That sounds as if the transfer of the teachers and staff of ILEA to the boroughs will not cover that very important point. That document would lead one to believe that all those people will disappear into limbo and never be seen again. Such deception is worrying parents.
I should like to say a word about the parents ballot. Of course the views of parents are important, but they represent a minute percentage of the residents and ratepayers of the inner London education area. Those views must be taken very much into account. If we had taken into account the phoney public opinion polls conducted at the ratepayers' expense by the Greater London council which told us that 78 per cent. of those questioned wanted the GLC to be retained, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be on the Front Bench today and I would not be here either. Those were phoney in exactly the same way.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: No. I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) who is no longer in the Chamber. I shall take his good advice by not giving way.
I hope that parents will realise that of course their views are important, but it is much more important that we get on with making certain that the education system in inner London will be good because it needs great improvement, as is clearly shown by ail the impartial figures.
I did not have the good fortune" to serve on the Committee that dealt with the Bill. However, I am certain that the Bill that has now emerged from Committee is immeasurably better than the Bill that went in. That is normal. Every Bill that goes into Committee emerges better, whether by the help of the Opposition, the help of one's own supporters or simply by items that come forward. However, in the end, one thing is clear: let nobody in the outside world think that the provision abolishing the Inner London education authority will disappear. The other place will try to remove it at its peril.

Mr. Sedgemore: I belong to the school of political thought that believes that big issues can be seen only from the perspective of the high peaks of the Prescelly mountains. These words came to me when I was in that area in west Wales:
GERBIL 1988
Dream to Nightmare
While I gazed on yonder mount I thought
Of former times and life that brought
For all its sorrow, woe and painful toil
Education which Gerbil could not spoil.
Thence slowly by nostalgic dreams I was o'ercome
Those dreams so sweet, so pure my listless mind did numb.
But in a while my heavy heart cried out to me
Oh why, oh why should life all trouble be?
Gerbil, Gerbil, long live Gerbil is the cry.
Kill the wretched Gerbil, others sigh.
I love it, I hate it. It's good, it's bad
Poor Ashdown, mixed-up stupid boy, so sad.
Confusion reigns, declares a scribe for MHT
His mistress wonders what's the point of NCC.
What clot created SEAC? What's it for?
Why waste money just to educate the poor?
Miffed, peeved, distraught Baker mutters privately
Oh God, dear God, what kind of fool is she?
My time wasn't come, I fear. She won't resign
Decripit woman: paid-up philistine.


The Pope decrees amendments he will need
Basil Hume warns Baker to take heed
Of opting out from doctrine and morality
Laid down in writ divine, Vatican supremacy.
Oh Holy See your bidding I will do
Prostrate upon my knees I worship you.
I grovel at your feet, shameless, and ask
For the blessing of God's vote in my task.
Who's that I spy, two thugs along the way—
Tebbit, Heseltine. Never ones to play,
They mug poor Baker, jab him in the crutch
With the Mace, would you believe! It is too much.
Parent power is what I want, shrieks Baker
Though not for ILEA: there I'm a faker.
With Angie by my side of course I twitch
She's worse than Thatcher. Dammit, she's a witch.
Academic freedom yes, but not tenure
Demands Sir Mark, wily bird, who's still not sure
Of votes from Leeds, North West and its High Peak—
Duplicitous and soggy so to speak.
Gloom and doom loom as Peers get ready for the Bill.
Our culture's in decline, the struggle is uphill.
Cry freedom God, a better world to make
For parents, teachers and our children's sake.
Create for them, schools literate, and free
From Gerbil, clause on clause of agony.
Give us a breadth of understanding and of truth
With time and space to hear the voice of educated youth.
Pray, save us God, from hapless tyranny
The executive, Bob Dunn and misery.
Raise our eyes to the skies in hope that we
Through this abyss can yet find victory.
Let's burn the Gerbil at the stake
Unholy witch we've come to hate.
And bury Baker, Thatcher and their Bill—
Son and bitch—in the cairns of yonder hill.
For those reasons, we ought to decline to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Tony Baldry: After that, I am tempted to recite the "Jabberwocky", but I am not sure that it would add to the sum of knowledge.
There is, I believe, much agreement about what our ambitions in education should be.
What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the State must wish for all its children.
Thus Jim Callaghan quoted Tawney in his Ruskin college speech, and who can dissent from that ambition?
The goals of an education, from nursery school through to adult education, are clear enough,
said Callaghan.
They are to equip children to the best of their ability for a lively, constructive place in society and also to fit them to do a job of work. Not one of the other but both.
We can all agree on that purpose. We can all agree on the goals. I fervently believe that this Bill will better provide the means of achieving that purpose and of achieving those goals.
The Education Reform Bill is the realisation of Rab Butler's Education Act 1944. It achieves a better balance of all those involved in our children's education. The Bill will give parents more influence over their children's education—a principle enshrined in the 1944 Act, which states that pupils are to be educated in accordance with their parents' wishes. Alas, in drafting his Act, Rab Butler failed to take into account sufficiently two important and closely related factors. First, he did not seem to recognise fully the natural instinct within every parent to strive to do his or her best for his or her children and, at the same time, create the right conditions for children to maximise their potential. Secondly, he did not recognise that the type of organisational structure needed to deliver the promise

could serve to stifle that natural instinct. For the 1944 Act to work at the time enormous powers had to be vested in local education authorities to support and deliver the promise of secondary education for all.
In common with much of the rest of the welfare state established at or about the same time, the 1944 Act made no provision for consumer influence, little for real choice and none for participation by parents in the running of the education service. Incredibly, it was not until more than 30 years later that the anomalies started to be addressed, with the wide-ranging recommendations of the Taylor committee in 1977, implemented in due course in the Education Act 1980. Gone was the practice whereby school governing bodies were merely an offshoot of the local education authority; for the first time parents and teachers were given a limited right to be represented on governing bodies. In due course came the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, which gave to parents and other governors wider rights, duties and responsibilities.
The Education Reform Bill will simply help enforce the principle clearly set out in the 1944 Act that, so far as practicable, children should be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents. The Bill creates a partnership and gives parents the proper role in their children's education envisaged in the 1944 Act but not delivered hitherto.
The role of the local education authority has been, and will continue to be, crucial in the running of schools. However, the time has come to give recognition to the equally important role that parents, parent-governors and, indeed, the whole community now have to play in education.
Just as the Bill provides a proper partnership involving parents, so, too, does it give new opportunities to schools. Henceforth, education will be focused on individual schools rather than centred on county halls. It is no wonder that only this weekend the general secretary designate of the Secondary Heads Association, John Sutton, said that the rightness of the Government's aim of making schools more accountable should be accepted and that heads should seize with both hands the opportunities afforded by the proposals to delegate school management responsibilities from local authorities to individual heads and governors.
Every teacher's union supports the principle of local financial management that the Bill will achieve. All too often the attitude has been as one head teacher described it:
Those who live in scholastic realms share a simple cosmological view of their financial world. They seem to believe that the source of all finance is mysterious, beyond their control and almost their understanding; as if somewhere in the fiscal heavens there is some celestial creature from whose udder financial nourishment descends. Sometimes the flow falters and they must tweak until it resumes. In recent years interruptions to the precious stream have become more serious, but this has not fundamentally affected the prevailing, comforting belief.
Such attitudes are changing very fast, as all involved in education appreciate that the quality and relevance of education can be markedly improved by delegating decision-making to heads and governors. This Bill will enable the governors and heads of each school to make the most effective use of the resources available to them and give each head flexibility within an agreed budget to manage his own school. I have no doubt that that will lead


to better and more effective schools. The other measures in the Bill will also reinforce our ability to have better and more effective schools.
The provision for a national curriculum is a long-overdue reform. At present, too many pupils give up too many subjects at too early an age. For far too long, too many schools have muddled along without any clear focus or objective standards. The national curriculum will give both focus and objective standards, to be delivered locally.
A system of testing and assessment will enable pupils' progress to be recorded and, most important, will enable teachers and parents to identify, from the age of seven, those who need help because they are falling behind. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said late last year,
There is no doubt that the parents want some objective yardstick against which to measure their children's achievement in education.
As to the opportunities for grant-maintained schools, no opponent has answered adequately the question posed by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he said:
Why should not a new category of public funded mixed ability but independent schools be at worst tolerated and at best encouraged within a mixed pattern of schooling?
Our children are all our futures. There is a duty on us all to ensure that schools help them to acquire the skills that are necessary to tackle the challenges of the 21st century and to develop inquiring minds and a thirst for further knowledge that will last their lifetime. The Bill seeks to ensure that what every good parent would want to provide for his children, our state schools should be able to provide for all our children.

Mr. Steinberg: The Bill is as radical as the Education Act 1944. The difference is that it has been born out of the division and dogma of the extreme Right wing of the Tory party. It sets out to differentiate and to segregate our education system. It will create divisions in our society.
My hon. Friends and I have fought for children with special education needs and we have won a few battles. We obtained some concessions from the Government, but not enough. In many respects we have failed children with special education needs, but not only have Opposition Members failed those children because we did not obtain the concessions that we need, but the Government have failed them because they have failed to cater for and protect those children. How have they failed? They have done nothing to protect the child with special education needs in the open admissions battle that will take place. Some schools will be regarded as "good" schools. They will be bursting at the seams and eventually they will look for ways in which to select their children, and children with special education needs will be debarred from those schools.
There will be elitist and grammar type schools, which is the last thing in the world that we want. We need schools that provide for a cross-section of our school population. All schools should be well resourced, with extra specific funds allocated for children with special education needs. That would not only encourage the right mix of children, but ensure that children with special education needs had access to the "best" schools—I say that guardedly.
We must ensure that children with special education needs go to schools with the best environment. Children must have the opportunity to attend schools that are supposedly the best. That includes children with physical disabilities. A child in a wheelchair or a deaf child must have the same opportunities to attend the school of their choice as other children. They must not be turned away because they cannot cope or because the school says that they cannot cope. The Bill does not take those needs into account. It is perhaps more important that a child with special education needs has a choice of school than a child without those needs. The Bill will not protect that choice.
The proposals to enable schools to opt out could have exactly the same damaging consequences on children with special education needs. Everything that we have gained since the 1981 Act could be ruined by the Bill. Careful links between special schools and local education authority schools could be ruined. The same arguments against open admission can be used for grant-maintained schools. Will those schools admit children with special education needs? We shall have to wait and see, but my guess is that they will not. My guess is that they will become elitist schools and the children whom I want to see getting a good education—those with special education needs—will be debarred from them.
I shall be brief because I have been told that I have only two or three minutes to speak, as usual. That has happened all the way through the debates on the Bill. I was always told to say a few words and sit down.
Education standards have not declined as the Secretary of State would have us believe, but integration since 1981 has made tremendous progress. Again I say "but" because the problem lies in the inadequate resources that the Government have given to education. Despite the fine words of the Secretary of State about all the resources that he has given to schools over the years, the fact is that the majority of schools are starved of resources. I speak from experience, because if I had had more resources as a head teacher I could have done more with the children in my care. I spent half my time trying to raise funds rather than getting on with the job and educating children. Other head teachers will tell the same story and give the same opinion.
The Government could have solved the vast majority of our education problems by giving more resources. The Government did not need to introduce this divisive, harmful and damaging Bill, which will not improve our education system but only divide it.

Mr. Fatchett: One thing is clear from this Third Reading debate—those who were not members of the Committee can now understand why our proceedings upstairs were enlivened by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). He has improved over time and I genuinely feel that there is a need for another substantial Bill so that he can improve further. I should like to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch. When the Secretary of State writes another edition of "I have no gun, but I can spit", my hon. Friend deserves not a mention but some words in that great volume.
Hon. Members who sat through the debates upstairs have been delighted by the degree of consensus about special education needs. We would all wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr.


Steinberg) for the way in which he brought his professional expertise to bear in Committee. More than anyone he was responsible for the small number of amendments that have improved the quality of the Bill and the quality of life, particularly for children affected by the relevant clauses.
On Second Reading we argued strongly that the Bill would centralise and divide our education system. Nothing that has happened subsequently has changed that opinion; indeed, it has reinforced it. What has happened subsequently is interesting. The Government's performance in Committee can be characterised in three ways —inefficiency, the internal division about education that is now widespread in the Conservative party, and the attack on freedom and, in particular, certain aspects of individual freedom.
As to inefficiency, on Second Reading the Secretary of State claimed that he had a blueprint for this country's education system to take it into the 1990s and the next century. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. No such blueprint existed on Second Reading or exists at present.
The Secretary of State proudly announced that he had a national curriculum. Even at this late hour he does not know how that national curriculum is to be made up. He cannot tell us the weight of the component parts of the national curriculum. He cannot tell us about the resource implications for the delivery of the national curriculum. What a position for a Secretary of State to find himself in five months after producing the Bill and five months after persuading the House that he had a national curriculum.
The Secretary of State has brought forward proposals for the abolition of ILEA. At no stage has he provided the House, parents of children in London or the London education system with a detailed analysis of the educational or financial implications of the abolition of ILEA. On both counts — the national curriculum and testing and the abolition of ILEA — the Secretary of State stands condemned for proposals that do not add up at this stage.
It would be unfair to accuse the Secretary of State of rivalling the inefficiency of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Those of us who have had the pleasure of reading today's news will know that the Secretary of State for the Environment has been convicted yet again. He is once more a recidivist. Planning permission for county hall has now been overturned in the High Court because the Secretary of State for the Environment got it wrong again. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has a record that is not quite as bad, but I suspect that he will make one or two mistakes as time goes on.
The Bill has also been characterised by internal division in the Tory party. We are told that the Centre for Policy Studies—in other words, the Prime Minister—feels that the curriculum is too prescriptive and restrictive and that all we need is a core curriculum. So the right hon. Gentleman's curriculum certainly does not match the wishes of the Centre for Policy Studies. We were told in Committee and on Report that Conservative Members were worried about the ballot procedues for opting out. Many have said privately and some, more courageously, in public that they want a provision that includes the need for more parental support than a simple majority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch well predicted the tale of the Secretary of

State's woe over the abolition of ILEA. When that appeared, the right hon. Gentleman's stock fell and fell, and he has now plummeted to being Mr. Two Per Cent.
There is a division between the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister on testing too. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested to me that I was harsh on the right hon. Gentleman, and said that my judgment that the Secretary of State would carry the Cabinet and Prime Minister with him was correct. My hon. Friend pointed out that he had money on the right hon. Gentleman, seeing him as a good long-term bet. My hon. Friend has not picked too many winners over the years, but I hope the Secretary of State will carry those good wishes with him.
However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow that I have one fear about his description of the Secretary of State's performance in terms of a political race. When the right hon. Gentleman gets to the first hurdle in that race he will be immobilised because these days he only jumps when the Prime Minister tells him to—

Dr. Hampson: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I cannot give way as I have only three minutes.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: To an hon. Member representing Leeds, at that.

Mr. Fatchett: Not even for that.
Another deeply worrying aspect of the Government's case is that they show contempt for those who oppose or wish to oppose them. That is why they will not listen to ILEA parents and come out with their specious arguments to undermine the legitimacy of the inner-London parents' ballot. They know they will be defeated in that ballot, which is why they are not prepared to take note of what the parents have to say.
The same is true of individual academic freedom. We have heard no greater weasel words from the Secretary of State than when he has tried to pretend that he favours individual academic freedom. If he were committed to that he would have put it on the face of the Bill, but he has turned down many opportunities to do so.
So the Bill is characterised by inefficiency, division and contempt for others. It has been sold by the Government on the grounds that they are greatly concerned about the state education system. What hypocrisy. Over eight years in office the Government have systematically denigrated our teachers, the performance of our children and our education system. Over eight years the Government have failed to invest in education and have penalised local authorities prepared to invest in the education of our children.
The Secretary of State and the Government have much legislative time, yet they have failed to bring forward the important reforms that are necessary for our education system. We need better education for our pre five-year-olds and proper education for post 16-year-olds, and all our schools should be properly resourced so that one of my hon. Friends does not have to send his child to a school with insufficient resoucces for the GCSE examination. Those things form the real agenda and presented an opportunity, but the Secretary of State and the Government have failed our education system and our children.

Mrs. Rumbold: I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have contributed to the debate on the Floor of the House and in Committee. In this debate my right hon. and hon. Friends have spoken with great conviction. Earlier, in introducing this Third Reading the Opposition gave us more of what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State charmingly called the flimsy persiflage of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). [Interruption.] That phrase may be difficult for some Opposition Members.
We had another poem from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman because it was a good poem. I hope that he will take up a third career of writing poetry and perhaps he and my right hon. Friend can compete in producing great works to be read by future generations in our schools. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) who has persistently and rightly spoken about the special education needs of our children. We have noted what he said and he was perfectly correct to draw that matter to our attention. I hope he feels that many of the improvements that he has persuaded the Government to make have been due to his own hard work.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a speech that was not quite as good as those that he made in Committee. Much of his speech was ranting and that was perhaps due to his ambition to become the leader of his party. I commend to the hon. Gentleman a speech made in an earlier debate by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). Although I did not agree with all of them, he should read her sensible views. However, they were well thought-out and the hon. Lady made an excellent speech. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) is not in the Chamber. I am grateful for his advice that it would be foolish and an indulgence to give way in a debate such as this.
I shall now turn to the contributions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) rightly identified the areas of great advance, especially in the national curriculum. We noted with great interest his pursuance of the point of history which, I am sure he will know, is a subject that is close to the heart of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. For that reason my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury does not have to worry too much. He said that the polytechnics have grown sufficiently to leave the local authorities and become independent. He identified further areas for advance and rightly paid tribute to the dedicated teachers in our schools and colleges.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury spoke about the Horniman and Geffrye museums. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned about the future of those two museums and is having urgent discussions with all concerned about how best to arrange for them to continue effectively. We certainly agree entirely with the analysis by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury about the future of the universities. Discussions on that will continue. I was especially interested in his views on grant-maintained schools. Those schools will be of great benefit to our new system. I can assure my right hon. Friend that as a consequence of grant-maintained schools becoming part of our schools system there will be no likelihood of the Government wishing to see other schools run by local education authorities being demoralised in any sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) also gave us his views, and I thought

that his point about training of heads was particularly important. I listened carefully to the way in which he thought that we should take note of the business schools and I noted his views on grant-maintained schools. He is right to perceive that local education authorities should work in peaceful co-existence with these schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made another of his vigorous speeches, and I pay tribute to him for the way in which he has supported my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself in debates in Committee and on the Floor of the House. He is right to identify parents as the key influence on their children in education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Sir G. Finsberg) made good points about the possibility of a campaign being spuriously raised, on the part of people in London, to preserve ILEA. We are well aware of the kind of scare campaign and scare stories that may be raised, and we shall take note of them.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Norwood described interventions in these debates as self-indulgent, and I shall take that advice.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) described the history of our education very well, and his point that this Bill will add greatly to the partnership between parents and children was well made.
Ever since the first documents were issued, followed by the Education Reform Bill, the cohort of the education establishment and its camp followers have been gnawing away at the Bill and its provisions like rats in a cellar. Acres of print in the education press, or on the education pages of the heavy newspapers, have been written and read, in the main, by exactly the same people. Like the local councillors who scan local newspapers for their letters, which is the curious and lucklustre way that local government has devised for talking to itself, so the education world has chattered away, leaving the rest of us to go on about our daily business, more or less unscathed.
Out of all the debates in this place and elsewhere, the issues of substance, the settlement with the Churches on the place of religious education and the matter of the funding of institutions of higher education have been successfully negotiated between my right hon. Friend and the relevant leaders of Churches and universities. For the rest, there is a sense of muted satisfaction that the Government are addressing the shortcomings of the education system. The national curriculum is seen as a great advance. The introduction of attainment targets and testing are seen as both necessary and rational in achieving improved expectations and achievements in our schools.
The involvement of parents and the local community in the running of schools and the opportunity to increase their influence is welcomed by all except the local power-brokers who are infuriated at the loosening of their stranglehold. I have not spoken to many heads who would not welcome the move towards local autonomy, only to heads who cannot wait for their turn to have local autonomy. The opportunity provided by the Bill for greater freedom through grant-maintained status is met with outright hostility by the education establishment, and small wonder. Such a possibility heralds the end to a monopoly which, on the one hand, has produced much


excellent work and education but has, on the other, produced disgraceful schools that have allowed pupils to pass through their hands with a minimum of impact, to a life of emptiness.
Both further and continuing education have been addressed in a similar way to give impetus to the urgent need to ensure properly co-ordinated educational opportunities for all over the age of 16 who seek them. The realigning of our institutions of education from the maintained sector into independence will be warmly welcomed and is now entirely opportune.
The Education Reform Bill marks an enormous stride forward for the children of today, for their parents and for the children of tomorrow. It sets the scene for much improvement and positive change. If this country wants to move into the challenges of the 21st century, we must educate our children so to do. The reforms will take the country well down the road towards that goal and I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 224.

Division No. 235]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Allason, Rupert
Cash, William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Amess, David
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Amos, Alan
Chapman, Sydney


Arbuthnot, James
Chope, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Churchill, Mr


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Atkinson, David
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Baldry, Tony
Cormack, Patrick


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Critchley, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David


Bendall, Vivian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Benyon, W.
Day, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dorrell, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Durant, Tony


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Fallon, Michael


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Farr, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forman, Nigel


Browne, John (Winchester)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forth, Eric


Buck, Sir Antony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Budgen, Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus


Burns, Simon
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Butcher, John
French, Douglas


Butler, Chris
Fry, Peter


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger





Gardiner, George
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Gill, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir lan
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Goodlad, Alastair
McCrindle, Robert


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gorst, John
Maclean, David


Gow, Ian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Madel, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Major, Rt Hon John


Gregory, Conal
Malins, Humfrey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Mans, Keith


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Maples, John


Grist, Ian
Marland, Paul


Grylls, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mates, Michael


Hannam, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mellor, David


Harris, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal


Hawkins, Christopher
Mills, Iain


Hayes, Jerry
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hayward, Robert
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moate, Roger


Heddle, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hill, James
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Hind, Kenneth
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Moss, Malcolm


Holt, Richard
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neale, Gerrard


Howard, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neubert, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunter, Andrew
Page, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patnick, Irvine


Irvine, Michael
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Irving, Charles
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jack, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Janman, Tim
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rathbone, Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Redwood, John


Knapman, Roger
Renton, Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knox, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lang, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rowe, Andrew


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Ryder, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lightbown, David
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lilley, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, David (Dover)






Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Thornton, Malcolm


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shephard, Mrs G (Norfolk SW)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walters, Dennis


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Whitney, Ray


Stokes, John
Widdecombe, Ann


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Summerson, Hugo
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Action)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coleman, Donald


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Corbyn, Jeremy


Armstrong, Hilary
Cousins, Jim


Ashdown, Paddy
Cox, Tom


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dalyell, Tarm


Barron, Kevin
Darling, Alistair


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Beckett, Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Beggs, Roy
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dobson, Frank


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Doran, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Douglas, Dick


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Blair, Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Buchan, Norman
Fatchett, Derek


Buckley, George J.
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Fearn, Ronald


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Flannery, Martin


Canavan, Dennis
Flynn, Paul


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Cartwright, John
Foster, Derek


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foulkes, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fraser, John


Clay, Bob
Fyfe, Maria


Clelland, David
Galbraith, Sam


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Garrett, John (Norwich South)





Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Murphy, Paul


Golding, Mrs Llin
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gould, Bryan
O'Brien, William


Graham, Thomas
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Hardy, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Harman, Ms Harriet
Pike, Peter L.


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Prescott, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Primarolo, Dawn


Henderson, Doug
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Randall, Stuart


Holland, Stuart
Redmond, Martin


Home Robertson, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hood, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Richardson, Jo


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Howells, Geraint
Robertson, George


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Ruddock, Joan


Illsley, Eric
Salmond, Alex


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Janner, Greville
Sheerman, Barry


John, Brynmor
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Johnston, Sir Russell
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, leuan (Ynys Mdn)
Short, Clare


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Skinner, Dennis


Lambie, David
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lamond, James
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Snape, Peter


Lewis, Terry
Soley, Clive


Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon David


Livsey, Richard
Steinberg, Gerry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Stott, Roger


Loyden, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


McAllion, John
Straw, Jack


McAvoy, Thomas
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McCusker, Harold
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Macdonald, Calum A.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McFall, John
Turner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Vaz, Keith


McLeish, Henry
Wall, Pat


McNamara, Kevin
Wallace, James


McTaggart, Bob
Walley, Joan


McWilliam, John
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N.


Marek, Dr John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Maxton, John
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Meacher, Michael
Wilson, Brian


Meale, Alan
Winnick, David


Michael, Alun
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Worthington, Tony


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wray, Jimmy


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)



Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tellers for the Noes:


Morgan, Rhodri
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Mr. Allen McKay.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Community Charges (Scotland)

Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
That the Community Charges (Registration) (Scotland) Regulations 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 157), dated 4th February 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th February, be revoked.
I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not with us this evening to take part in this debate, for we have before us an extremely important measure. I fear that we shall be subjected to a rather colourless performance by the Minister of State—[Interruption.] I think that I am entitled to describe his characteristics fairly.
The regulations set out the basis of the administration of the poll tax system in Scotland. They define the register and give power to nominate the responsible person in each household and to gather information. Every house in Scotland will be installed with a tax gatherer, an ally for a hated and unwanted system. We protested on Thursday and we protested again earlier today, and we were justified in doing so, against the way in which the regulations are being introduced.
I believe that the Minister will concede that there is widespread anger in Scotland and only little support for the poll tax. The anger of the people would be compounded if they appreciated the cavalier and contemptuous way in which the House is being treated. A matter of extreme importance is being crushed into a debate of one and a half hours. There is no possibility of amending the regulations, and adequate debate is precluded.
Apart from the unpopularity of the issue, we have the comments in the 18th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is the considered view of the Committee that almost certainly the regulations are defectively drafted, and there are significant doubts whether one of the schedules is intra vires. This is not a pedantic point that has been thought up by barrack room lawyers that are to be found in the midst of every Opposition party. This is a view that has been accepted unanimously by a senior Committee with a Conservative majority. The Committee was properly advised by men of skill in this place.
I believe that I am entitled to protest at the way in which these issues have been brushed aside as matters of no consequence. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated instance. This is the third occasion in a short time in which the Scottish Office has decided cavalierly to ignore the advice that has been offered to it by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I recall the housing support grant and the highly controversial education order that affected the boundaries of responsibility between local and central government. Thirdly, with the introduction of the administration for the poll tax, we are again watching advice being trampled upon by a Government who do not care. The issue was raised during business questions the other day. The Leader of the House swept it aside as being merely minor and technical. When pressed again he substituted "trivial" for "technical".
I do not believe that it is the over-nice conscience of somebody who once received a legal training to say that I do not consider this issue to be minor, technical or trivial.

It is a sad comment on the bunker mentality that prevails in the Scottish Office that those concerned are riot prepared to redraft the regulations. If the provisions within the fourth schedule are used, others will examine their form closely to determine whether something can be done to amend them elsewhere.
The Opposition are not on their own in being upset by the way in which this business is being conducted. We received detailed and helpful briefs from the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. All these organisations have expressed anxiety and have pointed to the faults, flaws and difficulties that they anticipate. It is impossible properly to ventilate these issues in a short debate of only one and a half hours. The role of the Council on Tribunals, the differences in the appeal procedures between England and Scotland and the problems that attach to the range of information that is being gathered are all matters worthy of debate. It is unfortunate that we are not allowed in any real sense to canvas the issues that have been raised with us.
I believe that the complications and complexities of the system are their own worst enemy. I do not believe that it is in any real, genuine sense workable, or likely to be a credit to the Government or those who drafted the legislation. I have no doubt that, on occasions, we overstate our case in opposition, and that, on occasion, we suggest that the complexities of the system are worthy of Gormenghast or of Kafka. But, even if we leave aside any form of exaggeration, the reality is alarming enough. In these complexities is a threat to privacy, and a real danger that individual liberties will be undermined.
There has been some argument in the House—it was rehearsed in debate on the English legislation — about why we in Scotland are asked that every individual over 18 should produce his or her date of birth. I have not yet received any satisfactory explanation. In England, in the event of confusion over names, other systems will be used involving such terms as "senior" and "junior" to overcome the problem, and I feel that we are entitled to some explanation.
I should like to put to the Minister a specific point about the right of appeal arising under section 17(9) of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, which provides for a right of appeal against designation as a responsible person. When will that arise? Will the Minister confirm that it will not arise on the issue of the inquiry form in schedule 3? There has been some confusion, but no doubt the Minister will be able to tell us the answer. Presumably, the right of appeal will arise at the point at which there is a formal designation, and not merely an inquiry form asking for information to he sent out.
Let me deal next with the complexity of the language in the form. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read its many pages will see how unsatisfactory it is. It has been heavily criticised by the Scottish Consumer Council. It seems reasonable to ask whether the notes, simply because they are in the regulations, are sacrosanct, or whether they can be varied. They strike me as a cautionary tale designed almost to prevent rather than facilitate communication. I hope that, even now, the Minister will consider the excellent advice of the Scottish Consumer Council that the whole thing should be taken away and he should start again.
In another place, Lord Glenarthur said that the objective—the end product—was clear and comprehensible language. If that is the test that the Government have set themselves, they have lamentably failed to achieve it. I can do no better than to quote the Scottish Council for Single Homeless, which has observed that the forms are
unnecessarily cumbersome, confusing, very badly designed and written in legal jargon.
I do not think for a moment that anyone would dispute that. The system will be a disaster for the citizens who find the forms on their doorstep and must try to understand what is meant, and what their role is supposed to be.
As the Minister may know if he has had the courtesy to read the briefing material that has come in, the Scottish Council for Single Homeless tried this out on a number of people in shared accommodation. I do not know whether this is a recommendation, but they were all university graduates. They came up with some very acerbic comments about the incomprehensibility of the language — which was described, I think fairly, as "goobledegook" in another of our briefings. I believe that the whole thing is nonsense.
It becomes clear when one reads through the administrative arrangements that we have now stripped away finally, as the organisation starts to gather speed, any pretence that the electoral register is not involved in the poll tax system. It is becoming more clear daily that there will be close collaboration with and connection between the poll tax register and the electoral roll.
We know, and I am sure that the Minister is aware, that in Strathclyde — by far the largest local authority in Scotland in terms of scale and size of operation—the inquiry form will be distributed by hand but it will not be blank. The working documents prepared in Strathclyde make it abundantly clear that the form will be completed simply by lifting all the names available from the electoral register, putting them into the inquiry form for poll tax purposes and asking the responsible person to confirm or adapt the information on it. The starting point of the system — we now know this to be true — will be the electoral roll. That is the basis on which the whole crazy superstructure will be built.
I am not saying that in constitutional theory this is a tax on the right to vote, but it is self-evident that we are building into the system a disincentive to register to vote of a kind that makes the poll tax in the most simple and direct way an enemy of the democratic process. Sadly, but inevitably, there will be people who will fall to the temptation to try to avoid the poll tax by removing their names from the electoral register. None of us can look on this with any complacency, but it is built into the regulations.
The machinery will be expensive and inefficient and will create enormous problems and great trouble. Armies are being mobilised to try to get the system creaking into action. I am told that in Strathclyde, for example, home helps are offered 40p for every completed form that they can capture and bring home. It is, I suppose, an interesting reintroduction of the principle of bounty hunting, which most of us thought had died out long ago.
The almighty struggle which will be needed to make the system work at all is wrong and misconceived. The end product is that Scotland will be lumbered with a tax that no one wants and that no one believes is just. It will be a

laughing stock and a mockery. More seriously, it will be an offence, because it will produce a system which has no relation to ability to pay and which will bring about a massive shift against groups and communities which are already disadvantaged in the Prime Minister's world of popular capitalism. The system is sustained only by the prejudice of Ministers and the cowed loyalty of Conservative Back Benchers who know not what they do but trudge through the Lobbies at the crack of a whip. There is nothing here.
I have no doubt that there will be hon. Members in the Lobby for the Government who will be rebels on other occasions south of the border but will not even know what they are voting for on this occasion. There is nothing in the regulations or in the exchanges to date that reassures us about civil liberties, privacy and the safeguards that should be built into a system of this kind. We shall not have an opportunity to have those adequate assurances or to debate this measure adequately.
We shall oppose the regulations in the Division Lobby. We shall continue to campaign in other ways, taking the fight against this noxious tax to the community of Scotland which will suffer under the Government's imposition. On that, I give the Minister an undertaking and a promise.

Mr. Bill Walker: I found the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) interesting in many respects. If I remember accurately what he had to say, he was complaining about the forms to which the regulations refer and saying that people in Scotland would find them difficult to follow and to' complete.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman would.

Mr. Walker: I have never found forms difficult to complete. —[Interruption.]
As ever, the hon. Member for Garscadden speaks with two voices. He also complained about the fact that the Government have put out a simple booklet to explain what the community charge is about, how it will work and how individuals will be required to complete the forms. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. The Government are quite properly going through the process of explaining to the people of Scotlsand what paying 14p in every £1 of local government expenditure means. That is what the community charge covers for those who pay it in full, and many will receive rebates of up to 80 per cent., yet the hon. Gentleman complains. Indeed, no one, except Opposition Members who never can understand or complete forms, could describe 14p as draconian.
The hon. Member for Garscadden said that the community charge is unpopular, and he drew attention to the fact that the Select Committee had picked faults in it. Of course, that is what Select Committees do and there are precedents for that. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that those, such as students, who wish to register appeals should be denied that opportunity? The defective area refers to those asking for an exemption or a reduction. The regulations refer to those people.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) raised the case of those who are exempt. Do the hon. Gentleman and the


Minister accept that people will not be exempt if they are widows with occupational pensions, pensioners with occupational pensions and a host of other people? Indeed, 99 per cent. of the population will not be exempt. In my constituency, those who are not exempt will have to pay £401 from 1 April, and those who are exempt will have to pay £98, or 25 per cent. of the poll tax, because they will have to pay the community water charge in full. Those are the people that the Government are penalising.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is interesting because there is no such thing as a poll tax. It does not exist. People will not be paying anything towards a poll tax. Opposition Members cannot fill in, understand or read the forms because they do not know what is on the forms. If the hon. Gentleman's figures are accurate and if he was accurately reflecting what is to happen, those people certainly will not vote Labour in future when they realise how expensive Labour is.
Before the hon. Gentleman intervened I was saying that the supplementary inquiry form is intended to make it easy for people to make claims. It is intended for the individuals who believe that they will get some reduction. The hon. Member for Garscadden is taking the view of the Select Committee and objecting to that, yet it seems to me that we should be approving, not disapproving, this measure. After all, if the hon. Member for Garscadden is a democrat— I believe that he is — and accepts that the House determines what happens in Scotland at this time because a Conservative Government are in office, he will accept that the Government are going to make sure that the community charge comes into operation and will work.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head. Is he now joining his hon. Friends who are suggesting some way of stopping it illegally?

Mr. Dewar: If something is ultra vires, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Government should totally ignore it and go ahead without any proper basis of authority in the primary legislation? That is what the Select Committee is saying.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and I have listened to him many times in Committee debating fine points of law. Lawyers frequently disagree. If the hon. Member for Garscadden believes that individuals, on his recommendation, will accept that it is ultra vires, it will be determined, as he said, somewhere else. I imagine that he means that it will be determined in a court in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman knows that lawyers make a fine living out of difficult areas of the law. I am not a lawyer, but I admire the marvellous incomes that they can receive for determining such things.
The Government's lawyers are convinced that what the hon. Gentleman and the Select Committee have said is wrong. There is nothing unusual about that. Having sat through many Committees and listened to many lawyers on different sides with differing views, I am certain of one thing: if there are six lawyers on a Committee, there will be six different views. That has been my experience. Fortunately, juries do not consist of lawyers. That is the one great safeguard that we all have.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Will my hon. Friend accept from a lawyer that, when the people of Scotland think about the point that was made by the hon.

Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) about people in Edinburgh paying £401 for the community charge, they will probably realise that the rate support grant for Scottish local authorities is much higher than in England. Yet, in my authority in west Lancashire, the community charge will be only £215. How will Opposition Members square that when the people of Scotland realise what is going on?

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That gets to the nub of the matter. I wish to stick to the regulations.
One reason why Opposition Members are so opposed to the legislation is that they know that for the first time the Scottish electorate will be interested in what is going to happen in terms of public expenditure at local level. It is true to say that, in the past, because so few people actually paid rates, the majority were happy to vote for increased expenditure. Of course, one can understand that if one does not have to pay, one will vote for increased expenditure.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in my constituency there are droves of people queueing up to sign the petition calling on the Government to stop the poll tax now`? Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that throughout Scotland many people are clamouring for the poll tax to be stopped, irrespective of whether they will gain? They see that the poorer sections of our community will suffer dramatically, and they are pleading with the Government to stop the poll tax.

Mr. Walker: If people want to queue up to stop the poll tax, let them get on with it by all means. There is no such thing as a poll tax; it does not exist. If people seek to stop something that does not exist, it is because they have been misled by the gobbledegook put out by Opposition Members. If people are signing a petition to stop the poll tax, they must be living in another country, because there is no poll tax in Scotland. The hon. Member for Garscadden talks legal definition and clarity and seeks to explain to the people of Scotland why he thinks the legislation is faulty and flawed. Any argument that contains a reference to stopping the poll tax is so flawed it is not true, because it is based on no reality.
If the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) had said that people were queueing up to stop the community charge, there might be some sense in that. He does not like the community charge, and he might get people to queue up to support his view. I trust that he will accept, though, that I never apologise for my support of the community charge because I believe that it is just and fair. I happily stump around my constituency making observations and comments in its favour, and I do not find my constituents queuing up to sign documents opposing it.
When one of my constituents asks about the poll tax, I give the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde: it does not exist. I point out to my constituents that they have been misled—as the people of Dundee have been misled over Ford—by propaganda put out by the Labour party. The regulations have been misrepresented, and the Scots will realise, as the Dundonians realise, that they have been led up the garden path. We set up the Ford enterprise; the Opposition screwed it up.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the regulations.

Mr. Walker: The Order Paper refers to the setting up of the community charge register, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: It does not refer to the screwing up of Dundee. The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the regulations.

Mr. Walker: If anything that I have said conveys the impression that the regulations will not screw up Dundee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has gone far enough. This has been a good-humoured debate so far. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would preserve that spirit of good humour and refer to the regulations.

Mr. Walker: You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Garscadden, who opened the debate, dealt with questions of language and complexity. If my language, or complexity, has in any way misled anyone — perhaps I am running true to form — I apologise.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) gave a copy of the petition to the community charge registration officer, it would greatly assist that officer in his task?

Mr. Walker: That may well be the case.
The hon. Member for Garscadden suggested that people would wish to give up their right to vote to avoid paying the community charge. I think that that is a fair interpretation of his remarks. If so, that would be very sad for democracy, because we want all the people to get out and vote. One of the great problems with local democracy has been the poor turnout at local authority elections, but one of the great advantages of the community charge will be that every person aged 18 and over will now have to take a direct and real interest in local government. No one knows how those people will vote, but when they see their money being spent they will certainly want to exercise their democratic right.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. According to "Erskine May", do you have the power at any time, when you know that dozens of other hon. Members wish to speak in a debate lasting one and a half hours, to interrupt an hon. Member who is drivelling on, not addressing himself to the motion, and repeating himself tediously, in the way that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is doing? Do you have any power to stop that abuse of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Under Standing Orders, I have power to do that, but at the moment the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is not repeating himself tediously. However, I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, and I hope that all hon. Members will make short speeches.

Mr. Walker: I do not intend to speak at length. I had not intended to do so, but Labour Members intervened and I tried to answer.
I am sure that this is common ground among all hon. Members. We all hope that people will not give up their right to vote in local elections to avoid registering. We hope that people will recognise that voting is an essential part of local democracy. We believe that the community charge will result in greater interest and participation in local democracy. That can only be healthy for it. If greater numbers turn out to vote—no one knows how they will vote—and if they elect councillors who want to spend or who do not want to spend more money, depending on their point of view, that can only be good and healthy for the local community.
I should have thought that everyone would welcome any measure that made people more directly interested in local government. The community charge certainly will. I hope that every 18-year-old will go out and vote.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Let me reply directly to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The architect of this piece of legislation is the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), now the Under-Secretary of State. In 1985 he wrote a pamphlet entitled, "The Case for a Poll Tax". —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman called it a poll tax and the ingredients of the Act are on all fours with what he said in 1985. He gave it the title and we took it up. It is a poll tax, and it is a bloody poll tax.
What are we doing in relation to the regulations tonight?

Mr. Eric Forth: Wasting time.

Mr. Douglas: We are not wasting time. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not read it, but let us look at the simplistic document issued by the Government, and what it says about the inquiry form, which will go to every household in Scotland. It states:
The inquiry form is quite simple. Most people will only be asked :".
The booklet then lists the questions, including
The name of anyone who may he exempt from the community charge. See page 14 for exemptions.
Page 14—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Can you read?"] Yes, I can read. The hon. Member for Tayside, North might be able to fill in forms, but Conservative Members should look at what people are being asked to disclose. The booklet states:
Who will be exempt from the community charge? The main exemptions will be for:

—long stay hospital patients
—people living in nursing homes, residential care homes, and hostels providing a substantial level of care.
—severely mentally handicapped people"

Would the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) disclose a member of his family to anyone knocking at his door as being severely mentally handicapped? That is what people are being asked to put in the public domain. There is not even a proper definition of how people can register as severely mentally handicapped. The list continues:
—prisoners in custody".
People are being asked to put that in the public domain. If that is not an infringement of individual liberty, I do not know what is. Conservative Members have been brainwashed by the Secretary of State for the Environment and by his simplistic statements of how smoothly the poll


tax will operate. However, we have seen some rebellion. The former Leader of the House, who moved the guillotine motion on the poll tax Bill, is now rebelling.
In his pamphlet, the hon. Member for Stirling suggested that Scotland should be the guinea pig. If we are the guinea pig, God help democracy in this country. I have distinct reasons, which I shall not go into, for my repugnance to this measure. If my constituents ask me for guidance about how to fill the forms in I shall tell them to put them in the wastepaper basket.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Following my hon. Friend's last point, it is a fact that these forms will end up in 1 million dustbins just as certainly as the poll tax will end up in the dustbin of history.
I have no intention of following the gomeril-like filibuster of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). The people of Scotland know that the hon. Gentleman's speech is typical of the quality of argument being put forward in support of this heinous legislation. It is despised and rejected by the people of Scotland, as it will come to be despised and rejected by the people of England and Wales, to an extent that is unprecedented with any previous piece of legislation.
I say to the Ministers, the Vichy regime on the Front Bench: go forth and sing the praises of the poll tax. When the poll tax was introduced at the behest of the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) in his little pamphlet in 1985 it commanded 39 per cent. support in Scotland. Since then the Government have issued pamphlets and booklets and have used the entire propaganda machine, but after three years the net consequence is that the poll tax, according to two authoritative polls that have been carried out in the past few weeks, now commands 15 per cent. support in Scotland. The Government have achieved the extraordinary political statistic that 15 per cent. of Scottish Tories want a campaign of non-payment against the poll tax.
I say, quite definitively, that my advice to people receiving the poll tax forms is, when they are asked to provide their date of birth on the forms they should not do so. Every Scot with an ounce of smeddum, when asked to provide their date of birth on the form, will not give it; they will send the forms back without it.
In Committee we had the authority of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who said that the date of birth is not needed to administer the poll tax. I believe that the date of birth is needed. If we want to know why we need look no further than the Library and the report commissioned by the Scottish Office from the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which states quite clearly that for the unworkable to be made semi-workable every individual will have to have a community charge personal identifier — which should not be confused with a state ID number—which will follow the person around the country. The question about date of birth is on the form so that that tag can be provided. Nobody in Scotland should fill in their date of birth, because in the English and Welsh legislation it has been clearly stated that there is no need for it.

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: I do not have the slightest interest in what the hon. Gentleman has to say and I have no intention of

giving way. We have heard enough this evening of the quality of debate offered by Conservative Members, who snigger and sneer like overgrown schoolboys and neither know nor care about what they have imposed on people throughout the country with the poll tax. Some of the Conservative clowns had the temerity to laugh when my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) talked about the mentally handicapped.
One of the wickednesses of the legislation is that the Government, in their great magnanimity, have agreed to exempt the severely mentally handicapped—a category of people that apparently exists for no other purpose in society — from the poll tax. To display their civic backbone, the merely mentally handicapped must pay up like everyone else.
I wonder whether Conservative Members know what is involved in being defined as severely mentally handicapped for the purposes of the legislation? If they examine the legislation that they are nodding through, they will find that mentally handicapped people are to be taken to a general practitioner to be certified as severely mentally handicapped. There will be no reprieve for the physically handicapped, no matter how severely handicapped they are. Does the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) approve of the fact that they will not be exempted?

Mr. Forth: I see no distinction between those who claim benefit from the state and must establish the basis for that claim and what is proposed in the regulations. Why the hon. Gentleman is getting so exercised about this part of the argument when, presumably for a long time, he has accepted that people who come to claim state benefits from the taxpayer must reasonably establish their claim, is beyond me.

Mr. Wilson: As usual, when the hon. Gentleman attempts to be rational he digs himself deeper into a trough. The definition of severely mentally handicapped for the purposes of the poll tax is not the same as any definition for social security purposes. Furthermore, the caring relative of a person in this category will have imposed on him or her the indignity of taking that person along to a general practitioner to have him certified as severely mentally handicapped. That is the only way in which a person can be removed from the register.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Wilson: We heard enough last week in Committee from the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who maintained that the physically and mentally handicapped should certainly pay the poll tax because they use local government services.
Tonight, the lie that there is no connection between the electoral register and the poll tax register stands exposed. The information from the electoral register will be put on the poll tax registration forms even before they go out. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is a hypocrite to wring his hands and say that it is desirable that everyone should vote. Every Conservative Member knows that one of the by-products of the legislation that the Government relish is that many poor people, and footloose young people, will he deterred from registering to vote because they know or hope that that is one way of staying off the electoral register—

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is now giving the lie to the real position, which is that many people are being


misled into de-registering for voting because his hon. Friends tell them—wrongly—that there is an association between voting and the payment of the community charge. Opposition Members must take the blame for that.

Mr. Wilson: When Conservative Members are given a fig leaf behind which to hide, they gratefully accept it. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were the antithesis of the truth, which comes as no surprise. I know of no Opposition Member who has told anyone not to register for the vote in order to avoid the poll tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: No.
Conservative Members reveal their ignorance when they point at my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West. I do not agree with some of the things that my hon. Friend has said about how to react to the poll tax, but he has never told people not to register to vote. People who know anything about it — a category that excludes almost every Conservative Member who will nod these regulations through—know that people will not escape the poll tax by not registering to vote.
The one defence against the poll tax and all the other legislation perpetrated by the Government is to retain the right to vote. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy report tells anyone who cares to read it that in order to compile a poll tax register, access to every list of names in this society, in both private and public hands, will be needed to keep the register going. Anyone who thinks he can stay off the poll tax register by staying off the electoral register is severely underestimating the cunning and determination of the Government to impinge upon individual civil liberties.

Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: I can think of few people that I would be less likely to give way to than the hon. Gentleman.
The statistics of the poll tax legislation are clear. Support for the poll tax in Scotland stands at 15 per cent., and opposition to it in England and Wales already stands at 70 per cent. The poll tax is the rock on which the Government will founder if they push it through. I am certain that there is a straightforward progression. The more people know about the poll tax, the more they turn again against it. The Government will blunder through the regulations and people will receive those incomprehensible forms. There is no doubt that a large number of the forms will be sent back — as they should be sent back. They insult the intelligence of the people of Scotland and the democracy for which people have voted.
In time, the process will be repeated in England and Wales. Conservative Members who intend to vote for these regulations should have the decency to read them and to look at the overall pattern of what they are supporting. I wonder how many Conservative Members took the trouble to go to the Library to read about the rebate system proposed by the poll tax legislation. How many of them know how this will hit the poorest people in our society? How many of them care? The answer is precious few. In their greedy little eyes this is another piece of legislation that will deliberately and shamelessly transfer wealth from those who have least to those who

have most. That is not an accident; it is the purpose of the poll tax legislation. Any Conservative Member with an ounce of guts would vote against the regulations.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) during his excellent defence of the rights of severely mentally handicapped people. During the course of his argument he effectively asked how one qualifies under the exemption clause as severely mentally handicapped. A Tory Member replied quite clearly and said, "By representing Cunninghame, North." I do not know the hon. Gentleman's name, but it is the character who sat with a leer on his face in the back seat next to the Door. It would be in order for him to withdraw his remark.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order? We have very little time left.

Mr. Canavan: I am asking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw what he said, because it is an insult to my hon. Friend, to the severely mentally handicapped, and to—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I had heard the remark I would have been the first to rise to my feet to insist on a withdrawal. I did not hear it. [Interruption.] Order. Let us get on with the debate. I call Mr. Marshall.

Mr. John Marshall: It is sometimes suggested that those of us who represent English constituencies should not speak in Scottish debates. May I tell the House that I am a former Aberdeen town councillor? It is pleasant to see in the House the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) who was also an Aberdeen town councillor at that time. I am also a former parliamentary candidate for Dundee, East. It is with regret that I have noted what has happened in Dundee under the aegis of the Labour party, both recently and over a number of years.
I listened with some interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). In those two speeches there was a suggestion that some people were not registering to vote because they did not want to pay the community charge. Those who do not register to vote because they are frightened about the community charge are cheats on society, because they want to have the benefit of local government services without paying directly for the costs of those services.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the hon. Gentleman alleging that the right to vote is determined by the necessity to register for the poll tax?

Mr. Marshall: No, I am not. The hon. Gentleman and his friends are alleging that some people are not registering to vote because they do not want to pay the community charge. Those who refuse to register for that reason are nothing but nasty little cheats. Opposition Members may laugh, but these individuals are cheats on society. They are seeking to get the benefit of local government services without paying directly for the costs of them. That is quite unfair.
Opposition Members have told us that nobody wants this tax. That is the cynical view that leads a cynic to say:
To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.
That is not true. Everyone knows that the community charge is a fairer system of raising local government taxation than the current system of rates. For example, the vast bulk of single-parent families will pay less in community charge than they pay in rates.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: That is a fact, and the hon. Gentleman should know it. The vast majority of single pensioners will pay less under the community charge than they do under the rates system.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Rubbish.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Rubbish." Unfortunately, that is a summation of the hon. Gentleman's view of this and most other subjects.
The only people who do not want the community charge are high-spending Labour councillors. The Labour party does not want the community charge because it knows that it will catch them out. The community charge payers will compare the community charges across Scotland, and will find—

Mr. Hind: Is not the important principle about these forms one that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) pointed out—that if Labour Members advise their constituents to break the law by throwing away the forms, they must bear in mind that the only way that democracy can work is by obeying the law? Opposition Members, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West, must bear in mind that if they were to advocate disobeying the law, we could also advise disobedience of Socialist laws, and then there would be

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right. Selective obedience of the law is a recipe for anarchy.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marshall: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's speech in a moment.
When the Labour Government introduced the selective employment tax, Conservative Members said that it was a bad tax, and one that would hit Scotland and generate unemployment there. We told the taxpayers of Scotland to obey the law. Otherwise, we would have had a recipe for anarchy and chaos in this country.
Some hon. Members do not like the community charge because it will find them out and it will find out Labour councillors. The community charge will be at its highest in Labour councils. I have no doubt that when the community charge is in being—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the regulations. I wish that he would come back to them and wind up his comments.

Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going as wide as some other speakers who have taken part in the debate and I am sorry that I have followed their transgressions.
I wish to make one further comment with regard to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). The hon. Gentleman suggested that he would advise his

constituents to throw into the wastepaper basket the forms concerning the community charge. That is a disgraceful piece of advice. How many of us would advise a constituent, given a form by the Inland Revenue, to tear it up?

Mr. Douglas: I stand by that advice, because the form asks my constituents to disclose elements of their private lives about which no Government or hon. Members should ask. That information should not be put into the public domain in this form. The income tax form is highly confidential and the information given in it is circumscribed by a great deal of custom law and statute law. That is not the case with regard to the community charge. We are asked to put into the public domain highly sensitive material. The difference between the income tax law and this piece of legislation is that, in this case, one individual in a household is asked to disclose information for everyone else in the household. That is not the case in income tax law. Indeed, the Chancellor took the—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is very long.

Mr. Marshall: I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West went on to talk about income tax law and said that the head of the household was not asked to divulge information about the rest of the household. That is still the case. It is only as a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget that there will be separate taxation of man and wife. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to point out that a Conservative Chancellor has produced that change.
I want to point out to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West what the consequence would be if his advice were carried out. What would happen in his borough if 10 per cent. of community charge payers tore up their forms and threw them into the wastepaper basket? The consequence would be very simple. The hon. Gentleman's borough council would be able to raise less money than it would otherwise be able to raise.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you not agree that it is outrageous that Conservative Members are voting on this legislation when they do not even know anything about the way in which Scottish local authorities are organised and have not tried to inform themselves about it? They are engaging in deliberate time-wasting and buffoonery, and the people of Scotland will note with bitter amusement that this was the best the Government could do to defend this legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Hendon, South has spoken at length. I am watching the clock.

Mr. Marshall: I am coming to the end of my speech. I have had one or two interruptions, which I did not ask for, but to which I was courteous enough to reply.
If the community charge payers of Dunfermline follow the advice of their Member of Parliament, their council will provide a lower level of service than it would otherwise provide.
If the community charge payers in Scotland listen to the advice of those in the Labour party who say, "Do not pay the community charge," the result will be redundancies in local government. I advise the Labour party to look at


what happened in Liverpool where, as a result of eventual financial sanity, there were redundancies in local government. That will also happen in Scotland if people do not pay the community charge.
I ask the House to support the Government.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Unlike the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) I should like to address my comments to the registration regulations.
I believe that the regulations present a major threat to civil liberties because they allow the registration officer and local authority poll tax canvassers to become snoopers. They will pry into people's private lives to keep the register correct and up to date. They will try to keep track of those entering and leaving the district to find out who is living where, when and for how long.
Date of birth has already been mentioned and I hope that the Minister will assure the House that it will not be included in that part of the register that is open to public scrutiny. I do not understand why that information has to be on the register and I hope that it will not be in the public domain; otherwise, unscrupulous people will be able to identify the very elderly or young, single women living alone. The Minister should make clear exactly what information will be placed in the public domain, what is private and what information is eligible to be sold.
The registration officers will run into enormous problems when issuing inquiry forms to so-called responsible persons. In the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987, there is no obligation on the registration officer to designate a responsible person. In many shared flats and houses, such a responsibility may impose a burden on an individual who may not be in a position to fulfil the obligations. How will such a person be designated when husbands and wives are joint owners of houses?
I hate to think what will happen in student flats and houses. Often students are arbitrarily thrown together in university accommodation — they are not necessarily friends. I am aware of the trouble that can arise when they argue about paying the gas and electricity bills. They end up not talking to each other, so heaven knows what will happen when they have to pay the poll tax. The concept of responsible persons goes against the spirit of the Bill, which is about everyone being responsible for him or herself.
The restriction on social work and employment files is not enough. The gathering of information restrictions should also cover that information that local authorities hold on, for example, child care or mental health files. The regulations should specify that local authorities should not furnish any personal information about an individual without their permission. The implication of regulation of 11(a) is that, as soon as an individual approaches a social work department, their name and address will be passedon to the registration officer.
I am glad that the Government have recognised that certain political refugees and others at risk from violence—also, presumably, MI5 "safe houses" — may make representations to be removed from the public register. Surely there should be a question on the registration form to alert the registration officer to the need to keep the name secret to avoid bureaucratic bungling and so on. If

the registration officer holds a list, of people who are removed from the public list, will all the registration officers be required to be positively vetted? I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
I know that you want us to be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker so I will bring my remarks to an end. The regulations show a complete lack of concern for the rights of individuals, for the poor and for the most vulnerable in our society. It is a centralising document which paves the way to the 1984 state. The least able to pay will be most affected by the costs of the poll tax and they will be threatened by its implementation. The poll tax attacks the poor and the weak. It also attacks the Church in Scotland and the crofting community.
In the final analysis the regulations once again point the finger at an unfair, regressive tax because that tax is not based on the ability to pay. It is a poll tax and in Scotland it is known as a Tory tax. The only good thing about it is that in the end the Conservative Government will reap what they sow.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which produced the 18th report. I should explain that only a very small proportion of the 2,000 statutory instruments that we examine every year are reported. We are advised by the Counsel to Mr. Speaker, so the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments receives entirely independent and objective advice.
As the Committee was established to safeguard and warn the House when abuses are being committed by a Minister, there is, equally, great responsibility on a Secretary of State not to use the powers by putting through legislation that is beyond the powers which the primary legislation has given him. We claim in the 18th report—there was a Conservative majority of both Houses on the Committee — that there is a strong case that the regulations that we are discussing tonight are beyond the powers that this House gave to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I want to refer to another relatively minor matter because several hon. Members have raised it tonight. Reference has been made to the forms that are to be issued as if that was a trivial matter. Under schedule 4, the regulations sub-delegate powers to the registration officer and grant him or her virtually unfettered powers to ask any questions that he or she wants. The Scottish Office refers to section 12(2)(b) and states that the questions will be qualified by that section. However, the 18th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments refutes that. Therefore, in a very important area, there is clear sub-delegation to a civil servant effectively to make the law. I do not believe that the House approved that idea when it approved the original legislation.
My next and most important point in this respect is that the regulations suggest that the registration officer can ask for documents. That is not a minor or trivial matter. Reference has been made to dates of birth. Will the registration officer ask for birth certificates? From the regulations, it appears that he has the right to do that. However, as the 18th report states, there is no evidence in the primary legislation and no sign in the regulations that the registration officer has any power to ask for those documents. If he receives the documents under the terms of the primary legislation, the documents are transferred


to this ownership because the primary legislation refers to giving information. In addition to the other burdens that this snoopers' charter places on the citizen, the citizen may find himself burdened with the cost of replacing birth certificates, deeds, leases and so on.
These are not trivial matters. The regulations go to the root of the poll tax. It is said that they provide a civil penalty, but they virtually impose criminal sanctions. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to make the regulations clear beyond peradventure, and he has failed to discharge it. It is not good enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about going to court. Why should tenants' organisations and ordinary citizens be forced to go down that expensive road when we in Parliament have a duty and an obligation — especially the Secretary of State—to make legislation as clear as it is humanly possible to achieve? The Secretary of State has failed on this occasion, and the Committee drew attention to his failure. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed the House and he has failed the people.

Mr. Alistair Darling: I shall advance five reasons why the people of Scotland are entitled to send back any form that they receive from the registration officer under the regulations.
First, regulation 12 makes it clear that the registration officer will hold on magnetic tape a wide range of information on members of the public such as we have not known in Britain hitherto. In addition to our ID tag numbers, the information will include the type of charge that is payable, which will identify who is in the property, joint and several liability, students who are in residence, and those who are physically handicapped. Under regulation 16, this information is for sale. Someone with enough money could buy a complete picture of any household in Scotland. For that reason I believe that the people of Scotland are entitled to send back the form to stop snoopers and those who wish to buy information.
Secondly, under regulation 15, although the register is open for public viewing, some concession has been made towards those who operate refuges for battered women, but only if they are managed by a voluntary organisation. What is the position of premises that are managed by a council or an association? The women will be exposed to anyone who wants to examine the register. I believe that they will be entitled to return the form.
Thirdly, schedule 2 sets out the procedure where the register is to be amended. One of the circumstances when an amendment is necessary is when a person dies. Under section 15 of the Act, it will be necessary for the registration officer to send a form to a dead person. That is inhumane and insensitive, but that is what the regulations provide. Those who have been recently bereaved will be receiving a form from the registrar. The Government should pay some attention to that.
Schedule 3 sets out the regulations that provide for the forms that will fall through the letter boxes of houses in Scotland during the next week or so. They are incomprehensible. For many, the dense type will be unreadable. Those reasons are sufficient in themselves to entitle everyone who receives a form to return it. If an individual does not understand what is required of him or her, surely the Minister will accept that he is entitled to return the form and ask for an explanation.
The definition of a "responsible person" is in section 17(6) of the Act. The subsection states that if
the premises are not occupied by the owner or by a tenant, the owner
or any tenant who has a lease of the premises
of 12 months or more
is the "responsible person". The subsection provides that any other person may be designated to be the "responsible person". If that is done, the designated person must be notified of the designation and that person has the right of appeal. There is right of appeal to the sheriff.
How is an ordinary member of the public supposed to understand that? How many people in the United Kingdom, let alone Scotland, have a handy companion volume of the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act and the accompanying regulations so that they can interpret that which is required of them?
I hope that when the Minister replies he will agree with me—I hope that he will listen just for once — that if someone does not understand the form he will be entitled to return it without question. Does he agree with me that the regulations are drawn in such a disgraceful manner that members of the public are entitled to return the forms without further question?
Schedule 4 is quite draconian. It purports to allow a registration officer to send out a form to anyone in Scotland and ask whatever he wants. That is a gross infringement of civil liberties, and quite unacceptable. It represents the fifth reason why those who receive such a form should be entitled to send it back, and I believe that they would have the support of the vast majority of people in Scotland.
This evening's debate, truncated as it is, represents the tragedy of Scotland. The only voices in favour of the regulations have been those of people who are completely uninterested in what goes on there. They will be interested in the next 12 months: they will be interested when the regulations apply to them
The regulations impose powers unheard of in this country—powers that, if they had been imposed during the occupation of the continent during the war years, would have been opposed. People in Scotland must be quite clear about this: if they disagree with the poll tax, or do not understand what is required of them, they must send the forms back without question. If they do so, they will have universal support.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Scottish National party is the only Scottish political party that has not been allowed to make a contribution to tonight's debate, but it certainly wishes to make its contribution. It is disgraceful that longwinded interventions by hon. Members from English constituencies have prevented Scottish Members from making their contributions. May we seek the protection of the Chair to prevent this from happening on future occasions?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Unfortunately, the debate has been a short one. The length of speeches and interventions is not in the hands of the Chair. I regret that it has not been possible tonight to call a number of hon. Members who I know wished to comment.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)


and his hon. Friends have tried hard to imply how deeply unpopular is the community charge in Scotland and how much concern there is about it. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last Friday, the issue did not arise once in over half an hour of questioning. That, I think, is a measure of the concern in COSLA. I prefer the approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who, in a realistic and perceptive speech, recognised the merits of the community charge and the greater accountability that it will bring.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham), in a telling intervention, asked what was the point of all the petitions that he and his hon. Friends have been submitting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) pointed out, they could be a useful source of names and addresses for the community charge registration officer.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) and others have talked about the Labour party's secret weapon of gumming up the works of the community charge registration officer by returning forms to him with real or bogus queries. The concept of responsible persons is not so very complex or difficult. It may help the Opposition if I say a word about the identification of responsible persons, which has been the subject of much ill-informed and mischievous comment.
In the vast majority of cases, it will be entirely clear who is the responsible person. He or she is the owner-occupier, or tenant-occupier, of the premises—usually the present rateable occupier or, as it used to be, the head of the household.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister saying that from now on the names and addresses on petitions will be used for purposes of gathering the poll tax?

Mr. Lang: That is broadly what I suggested.
In the vast majority of cases — over 80 per cent., according to some community charge registration officers —it will be quite clear who is the responsible person; it will not be a matter for decision. Owner-occupiers and tenant-occupiers are clearly identified in the Act as responsible persons, and there is no need for any appeal mechanism. In the limited number of cases in which the responsible person is not automatically identified, the provision exists for agreeing with the community charge registration officer, or, if necessary, the provision for designation by him.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister used a strange phrase. He said that in many cases there should be no right of appeal. There is a right of appeal. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer the specific question which I asked him: when does that occur? Does it occur after the issue of the form as it appears in schedule 3, or at some later stage?

Mr. Lang: I think that the hon. Gentleman misheard me. I said that there is no need for any appeal mechanism. In many cases—[Interruption.]—it is automatic. There is provision for an appeal, but there is no need for it in that situation. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question as to when the time scale for appeal under section 17(9) against designation becomes effective, the answer is, at designation.

Mr. Dewar: It does not help to say, "at designation." I shall rephrase the question: does the arrival in someone's house of the form which is set out in schedule 3 amount to designation, and does the right of appeal—if there is a wish to exercise it—arise at that point?

Mr. Lang: The right of appeal arises within a period of 28 days from the time when the designation is made by the community charge registration officer, when the form is issued by him, either by post or by hand.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked about information on exemptions being in the public domain. The hon. Gentleman's comments about prisoners and the severely mentally handicapped were equally applicable to the electoral register. The concept is similar to the compilation of the census and the completion of income tax forms. Information about exempted people will not appear either in the full register or in the parts of the register available to the public.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Lang: I must press on. I am sorry, but there are a great many points to answer.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has said that he will not give way.

Mr. Lang: The community charge register will record each individual's date of birth so that there can be no doubt about people's identity when there are several names for one address. For the internal purposes of a local authority, the system may generate reference numbers—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Lang: For the internal purposes of a local authority, the system may generate reference numbers for each individual, but they will not be numbers that a person is required to memorise or to quote when he moves from one authority's area to another; nor will identity cards be issued. I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the dates of birth will not be on the public part of the register. Only the names and addresses and the community charge multiplier, except for women's refuges, will be on the public part. We are considering whether any further restrictions should be placed on the public information.
Hon. Members have referred to the place of the electoral register in respect of the community charge register. In contrast to some prophecies of doom, the actual drop in the number of names on the electoral register has been very small—less than 1 per cent. on the 1987 register. A number of factors could account for that, including scaremongering by the Labour party about the community charge system. As yet, it is too early to say what part of the reduction might be attributed to any of those factors.
The electoral register is a public document, available to anyone for any purpose. It will, of course, be available to the community charge registration officer when he makes up the community charge register, but it will not be a primary source of information. The 1988 register will be out of date anyway by the time the community charge register is made up.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Lang: I shall not give way. I have only five minutes left.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that no Opposition Member had told people that the community charge register would affect their right to vote. I have a leaflet issued by the "Stop It" poll tax campaign, of which I understand the hon. Gentleman is chairman, which says:
The only way to avoid paying is to give up your right to vote!

Mr. Wilson: I would certainly be interested to look at that leaflet. [Interruption.] The Minister, deliberately or accidentally, has misled the House. The words at the top of that leaflet and, I suspect, the address at the bottom of it have nothing to do with the "Stop It" campaign. An important point was lost in his flow of gobbledegook—[Interruption.] As I understand it, the Minister said that dates of birth were to be used in the compilation of a number. Will he explain why that is the case when the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said quite specifically that no such system is needed for the legislation for England and Wales? Who is misleading the House?

Mr. Lang: It is really rather touching to see how keen Scottish Labour Members are that Scottish legislation should be brought into line with English legislation. It so happens that the two Acts differ in that respect.
I shall be happy to show the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North the document from which he is so anxious to depart. It bears the logo of the "Stop It" poll tax campaign.
I have another document which states:
There is a country where the right to vote was won after years of long and hitter struggle. The present Government wants to change that right.
That is totally and blatantly untrue. That document is published by the Labour party. I invite the hon. Gentleman to stand up and disown the document.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If he looks at the documents produced by the Labour party in Scotland, he will find that they are entirely accurate on all those points.
Is the Minister genuinely holding to his point about there being no reliance on the electoral roll? I have a guidance note for staff, issued by the Strathclyde regional council, which, when referring to the inquiry form that is to be sent out under schedule 3, says:
In the first issue in the spring and early summer of 1988 the names of householders and persons believed to be resident at the premises will be extracted from the electoral register and pre-printed on the forms.
It is quite clear that the electoral register will be used for that purpose.

Mr. Lang: I knew that I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. I gave him the opportunity to disown this document, which says:
The present Government wants to change that right"—
referring to the right to vote. The hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to withdraw that.
The way in which the Opposition parties are flirting with lawlessness over the introduction of the community charge represents the height of irresponsibility.

Mr. Allen Adams: rose—

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the order [25 March].

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 301.

Division No. 236]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Maria


Alton, David
Galbraith, Sam


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Armstrong, Hilary
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Ashdown, Paddy
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Golding, Mrs Llin


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gould, Bryan


Barron, Kevin
Graham, Thomas


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beckett, Margaret
Grocott, Bruce


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hardy, Peter


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bermingham, Gerald
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bidwell, Sydney
Haynes, Frank


Blair, Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Boyes, Roland
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Keith
Henderson, Doug


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Holland, Stuart


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Buckley, George J.
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Illsley, Eric


Cartwright, John
Janner, Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Clay, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clelland, David
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terry


Cox, Tom
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Livsey, Richard


Cummings, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Doran, Frank
McKelvey, William


Douglas, Dick
McLeish, Henry


Duffy, A. E. P.
McNamara, Kevin


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McTaggart, Bob


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McWilliam, John


Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Marek, Dr John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Fatchett, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Faulds, Andrew
Maxton, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Meacher, Michael


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Meale, Alan


Fisher, Mark
Michael, Alun


Flannery, Martin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Foster, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)






NOES


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Skinner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds)


Mullin, Chris
Snape, Peter


Murphy, Paul
Soley, Clive


Nellist, Dave
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Brien, William
Steinberg, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbur)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Prescott, John
Turner, Dennis


Primarolo, Dawn
Wall, Pat


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wallace, James


Radice, Giles
Walley, Joan


Randall, Stuart
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Redmond, Martin
Wareing, Robert N.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Reid, Dr John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster)


Richardson, Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Robertson, George
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Brian


Rogers, Allan
Winnick, David


Rooker, Jeff
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rowlands, Ted
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan
Wray, Jimmy


Salmond, Alex
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sedgemore, Brian



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Mr. Adam Ingram and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Short, Clare



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Allason, Rupert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Atkinson, David
Churchill, Mr


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Batiste, Spencer
Colvin, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'REST)


Bellingham, Henry
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Couchman, James


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bevan, David Gilroy
Curry, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Day, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Peter
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Durant, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Emery, Sir Peter


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Farr, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Favell, Tony


Buck, Sir Antony
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burns, Simon
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Burt, Alistair
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel





Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
McCrindle, Robert


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gale, Roger
Maclean, David


Gardiner, George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Madel, David


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Gow, Ian
Mans, Keith


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marland, Paul


Green way, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mellor, David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Miller, Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Iain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hayward, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hill, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hunter, Andrew
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Renton, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rost, Peter


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Sackville, Hon Tom


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lawrence, Ivan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lee, John (Pendle)
Scott, Nicholas


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shephard, Mrs G (Norfolk SW)
Tracey, Richard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walters, Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Steen, Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wheeler, John


Stokes, John
Whitney, Ray


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wilshire, David


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Woodcock, Mike


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Ayes


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the Division, the Minister of State was good enough to show me the leaflet that he mentioned towards the end of his speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now want to inform the House that the leaflet is clearly marked as being published by the Morning Star youth campaign. I am sure that he will regard it as a point of honour, as well as a point of order, to make it clear that he sought to mislead the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No breach of order of the House has been committed and we cannot go back on the debate. We must now move on.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept your ruling, but if it is not a matter for the Chair, I think that the House will agree that it is a matter for the conventions, practice and honour of the House that it becomes a problem and a task for the Minister. If it is not your duty,

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is certainly the hon. Gentleman's duty and responsibility. Will you give him a moment to make the necessary apology?

Madam Deputy Speaker: We cannot go back on the debate, unless the Minister wants to make a personal statement.

Mr. Lang: The House will recall that at Scottish Question Time last week, I quoted from the leaflet. I said that it bore the logos of the "Stop It" campaign and the Morning Star. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had an opportunity to check the matter and repudiate the leaflet if he wished. Tonight he seeks to take the view that his organisation's name has been taken in vain. If he wishes to repudiate the Morning Star and attribute all the rubbish on the leaflet to it, I shall be happy to hear that from him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no way that I shall reopen the debate. We now have a petition.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I appeal to my colleagues not to expect the Minister to rise above the level to which he is accustomed? We are asking far too much of the Minister and should not—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These points of order are now becoming an abuse of the House. The point has properly been made. Mr. Peter Shore. Petition.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it a fresh point of order?

Mr. Buchan: I believe that it is. We have had a statement, properly, from the Minister. Some of us believe that that statement is quite untrue in intention—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a mat ter to be debated now. No breach of—

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
No breach of order of the House has been committed. I have allowed points of order, which are bogus. We cannot resume a debate that has finished.

PETITION

Health Services (Tower Hamlets)

Mr. Peter Shore: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the staff, students and clients of Tower Hamlets and surrounding health districts. The petition draws attention to the increasing difficulty in providing adequate and timely health care to the users of the London hospital and the other health services in Tower Hamlets.
The petitioners pray that this honourable House supports the maintenance and provision for patient care in England and Wales, at least at the level which existed in early 1981, bearing in mind the need to provide adequate central support for health care in underprivileged districts such as Tower Hamlets and to provide career structures and options adequate to attract essential nursing and paramedical staff and ensue that they remain in the service without detriment to other aspects of patient care services until such time as any current review on National Health Service funding has been completed and until any new proposals for National Health Service provision has been evaluated, shown to be practical, cost-effective and acceptable to the electorate.
Among the 843 signatories are 66 National Health Service consultants, 103 junior doctors and general practitioners, 105 medical and dental students, 84 trained nurses, 15 midwives, 56 student nurses, 39 social workers, 73 patients, 10 porters, six telephonists and 164 other hospital staff.
I fully support this petition and hope that the House will respond to its demands.

To lie upon the Table.

Council House Sales (Sutton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Sir Neil Macfarlane: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment for attending to answer this debate. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), with the full approval of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, wishes to catch your eye at the end of my remarks.
The right to buy has been one of the most significant social advances that we have seen for generations, and millions of people have availed themselves of this enormous benefit. Indeed, many more still wish to do so. I am concerned that perhaps bureaucratic procedures may be thwarting many of my constituents in Sutton, Cheam and Worcester Park from achieving their undisputed right —a chance to purchase their property.
I have introduced this subject after monitoring closely the growing number of people who have either been to see me at my fortnightly advice bureau or who have written to me at the House over a period of the better part of two years. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could encourage dialogue between her officials and the officials of the London borough of Sutton, through the chief executive, to try to identify the perception of both sets of officials of some of the problems. I cannot make any allegations because I do not know all the facts. What I do know is that, undoubtedly, there is mounting frustration among my constituents. I hope that the debate will enable us over the next few months to ascertain exactly what those facts are because they are very urgent and very important.
I shall quote one letter from my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Willis, to whom I spoke yesterday. They wrote to me on 3 November 1987 and said :
Further to correspondence in July and August this year, I thought I would let you know that we are now into November and still unable to get our price for our maisonette from the London Borough of Sutton.
I know someone who is also experiencing the same treatment, has in fact brought this matter to the attention of Margaret Thatcher.
Of course, that is a considerable step to take. The letter continues:
They are now blaming the hurricane and damage in the Borough for holding up our price. However many more excuses are we to put up with before we get an answer?
I realise you are getting the same outcome to the question as we are but perhaps you can check with Mrs. Thatcher about what is happening to our so called 'Right to Buy.'
Obviously, I wrote, as any hon. Member would have, to the local authority on 5 November, and I shall quote some parts of its reply of 3 December, which I shall pass on to the Minister. The legislative changes which may, in some ways, have added to the burdens of local officials are always uppermost in the minds of many people and need clarification.
On 3 December, the director of housing in Sutton wrote to me as follows:
Mr. and Mrs. Willis' right to buy was confirmed on 28 August 1986 and the appropriate work regarding an estimated service charge undertaken in accordance with the practices at that time. Unfortunately before it was possible to provide a priced offer in accordance with the Housing Act


1985, Section 125, the Housing &amp; Planning Act 1986 became effective which introduced new legislation relating to service charges.
The legislation requires that all offers to sell leasehold properties made after 7 January 1987 shall contain a quotation relating to service charges to be levied for the five years following the sale, the major elements of which will then be binding upon the Council. Consequently, in the event of an under-estimate it will not be possible to recover a full contribution from a leaseholder with the shortfall being met by the Housing Revenue Account, ultimately to fall upon those people who remain tenants. Conversely, any overestimate would not only tend to depress the value of the property but could also dissuade a purchaser from proceeding … Unfortunately, the technical manpower existing within the Housing Division could not be released from other duties and accordingly the appointment of a Leasehold Surveyor was sought. It was not possible immediately to attract an applicant of a suitable calibre and the post was not filled until 10 August 1987. At that time the Leasehold Surveyor started work on the surveys but was, of course, faced with a substantial back-log.
This seems to show that there has been difficulty in understanding the legislation. Sutton council appears to downgrade the sale of houses as a matter of general policy and overall philosophy. The case of Mr. and Mrs. Willis reflects the problem facing many others. I spoke to Mrs. Willis yesterday. She has still not had a price quoted.
Mr. K. R. Brand came to see me on 14 March. By June, he will have been kept waiting for nearly two years. A price has not been agreed, and he makes the point that it would surely be fair to take into account the number of years that a prospective purchaser has had to wait, when the council has been dilatory, as part of the five-year period during which a new purchaser is prohibited from selling on the property.
Mr. Parnell applied on 3 March 1987. He has had no valuation and no survey. He is 53 and makes the point that every month of delay is a disadvantage at that age.
There are dozens and dozens of similar cases on my constituency files, and I am sure it is the same on the other side of the borough. Many constituents have written to me registering their frustration. On 10 June 1987 I wrote to the chief executive, referring to the delays. He replied on 27 July:
Any delay in the sales of Council houses to tenants is regretted, but is due to staff shortages in the Valuation and Legal Department. There is sufficient of a shortage of legal staff in the South East area that the Council is having difficulty in both recruiting and retaining staff, qualified and unqualified. We are seeking solutions to the problem and I am optimistic that recruitment will improve.
Although there have been some delays on sales of Council houses, there have been substantial delays in connection with the sale of Council flats, due to the Council's inability to obtain a surveyor to do the necessary structural survey. Recently, the Council decided to employ a private firm to do the necessary work and I anticipate that the backlog of sales of flats and maisonettes will be cleared over the next 3–5 months.
That letter was written in July 1987. It appears from those statistics that the situation is getting worse. Allowing for the problems facing the council over the sale of leasehold properties, there are still delays for those without that complication. I am told that Sutton has bid for increased staffing for the year 1988–89, with 98 full-time and 17 part-time staff being recruited. I am told that that has a price tag of about 1·3 million. Time and again the impression given to my constituents is that no amount of recruitment has helped them with their right to buy, thus enabling them to become part of the property-owning democracy.
I think that even more staff will be taken on by the council to assist in the empire-building that is perhaps going on in some of the committees in the borough. Many residents have said to me that Sutton has adopted a slowit-down approach to the right to buy. Only time will tell whether that is the case, but 1 and many others wonder whether the abortive policy to abolish grammar schools absorbed and exhausted the energy resources and the time of the officials in the 18 months between 1986 and 1987. Of course, abolition of the grammar schools remains a reality for my constituents while the council is in office. It may well be that potential purchasers were held up while the attention of the council was diverted to other priorities. We must look at that possibility.
I do not say that Sutton is the worst council in the country about the right to buy, because at the moment we do not know the facts. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will commence a dialogue with the council. Let us have a look at how the Sutton officials see the working of the legislation and at whether Sutton can use the private sector to speed the system, because surveying, valuation and conveyancing are critical. I am anxious to help my constituents and I am certain that my hon. Friend is anxious to implement Government policy as widely as possible.
On 7 March I wrote to the chief executive of the council about the delays and he was good enough to reply on 25 March in a letter that arrived this afternoon. I shall make certain that my hon. Friend and her officials see that letter because it is a lengthy and important document. There are a great many observations on the difficulties surrounding leasehold properties. I am certain that the chief executive will be happy for me to pass on the letter as a means of getting things moving for many of my people who are angry and frustrated.
I hope that as a result of this debate we can set in train a detailed analysis by the Department of the Environment and the London borough of Sutton to try to determine precisely why these delays have been growing over the past 18 months. At the moment they show little sign of diminishing and perhaps we can try to find some system whereby we can speed the plough. I am told that several hundred people in both parliamentary constituencies in the borough have been frustrated and that their anger is mounting as each day adds a new dimension of anxiety and frustration to their lives.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important Adjournment debate. I support the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane). He is right to express concern on behalf of his constituents and I feel justified in taking a few minutes to do the same on behalf of my constituents.
As my hon. Friend said, the policy of council house and flat sales has been one of the great success stories of the Government under the Housing Act 1980. I recall that it was working very satisfactorily for some years in Sutton while the Conservatives were in control of that local authority. Since May 1986, when the alliance managed to gain control of the council, progress seems to have slowed, and that is not satisfactory for my constituents.
Council officials say that there has been a problem in calculating the service charges that would have to be paid


by tenants when they become owners. Equally, it is said that there are difficulties in recruiting enough trained surveyors to expedite valuation and other related work. However, many of my constituents, who have been frustrated, and had their patience sorely tried, suspect that the local authority may have been deliberately dragging its feet because of some kind of nod and wink from its new political masters in the alliance party. This serious charge needs to be refuted convincingly. The best way for the council to do that would be to demonstrate in practical terms to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend that it is able to speed things up, and to begin that process soon.
I can give the House three brief examples. Two of my constituents who came to see me recently had been waiting since July 1987 to buy their flat, and so far, they had not even had the survey done. Another couple, who are not in the first flush of their youth, came to see me about their right to buy, for which they had applied in April of last year. They were still waiting in July of last year, but I understand from a recent phone call to my office that they will at last be able to discuss a firm offer this week, in March this year. Another constituent and her handicapped son have been waiting since February. That sounds better, but in their case, the story from the council officials was that the officials must await the consent of the Secretary of State under the terms of the Housing Act 1985 and the Housing and Planning Act 1986 before they can meet my constituents' wishes.
The point made by my hon. Friend, which I endorse, is that if these are genuine technical reasons for delays, the officials in the Department of the Environment and in the London borough of Sutton should get together urgently and in a constructive spirit, to sort out ways to overcome these difficulties. On the other hand, if, as I suspect and fear, there are some political reasons for this situation and the foot-dragging, that is inexcusable, and the practice must be brought to an end as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend has already made it clear that the desire for home ownership, whether of a house, a flat or a maisonette, is a laudable one, which has been greatly assisted by the legislation introduced by the Government. Such legislation is the law of the land, with the full force of Parliament and the House. Parliament's will should be respected in this as in all matters, and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, tonight and subsequently, to use all her authority in the Department to see that Parliament's will is carried out.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Marion Roe): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) for introducing this debate on so important a topic.
The right of tenants of local authorities and other public sector bodies to buy the homes they live in has, of course, long been a vital element of our housing policy. This has been reaffirmed three times at the polls. There are now very few of any political persuasion who disagree with US.
Since 1979, when we were voted into office, no fewer than 1·1 million council, new town and housing association houses and flats have been sold in Great

Britain. Nearly three quarters of these have been sold under the right-to-buy legislation which we introduced. Right-to-buy sales run at around 100,000 a year—when one comes to think of it, that is a lot of houses—half as many again as all the houses in my hon. Friend's borough. In some years, even more have been sold.
Of course, the discounts that are payable have helped. Without them many people could not afford to buy their homes. These start at 32 per cent. for a house and increase by 1 per cent. a year to a maximum of 60 per cent. where the buyer has been a public sector tenant for 30 years or longer. For flats, the discount starts at 44 per cent. and increases by 2 per cent. a year to a maximum of 70 per cent. for buyers who have been public sector tenants for 15 years or longer. These are very generous discounts. They are justified by their results and on account of the rent that the tenants will have paid over the years and that will have been set against the loan charges for building the house or flat.
Most people, indeed the vast majority, would opt for home ownership if given the chance. Two thirds of homes in England are now owner-occupied—double the figure in the 1950s—which puts us almost at the top of the league among comparable countries.
Almost as important is the relative freedom of owner-occupiers to sell their home when they want to, move away and buy another one. That is important because it increases personal choice — which is a good enough reason in itself—and also because it is a more efficient way of matching supply with demand than any allocation policy ever can be.
Despite the enormous success of the right to buy in widening home ownership, there are some who would like to become home owners, but who are not interested in buying their current home—perhaps because they have a growing family in a flat and would prefer to be in a house —but need a little help to be able to buy on the open market. That flat could, in areas with acute homelessness problems, mean that another family can be kept out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. My right hon. Friend has therefore announced that we are to bring forward powers to enable local authorities, with the Secretary of State's consent, to offer incentive payments to tenants who are willing to give up their tenancy to buy in the private sector, so freeing vacancies for those whose circumstances are such that they need rented accommodation.
Sale of council housing stock also benefits councils in two ways. It relieves them of the burden of management and maintenance, which can be very expensive. That saves money and allows housing departments to concentrate on those tasks where their skill and knowledge are at a premium. It also unlocks capital resources that enable councils to provide for those for whom purchase is not a realistic option; and it enables them to deal with the arrears of maintenance and refurbishment of their existing housing stock. We all know what a tremendous job this is. Receipts from sales since 1979 already total more than £4·5 billion. That augments the amounts that councils borrow to finance their capital programmes and allows them to undertake work that would not otherwise be possible.
I therefore take a very serious view when I am told that some authorities are not as quick as they might be in processing right-to-buy applications from tenants. That right is given to them by Parliament and delay is tantamount to denying it. There are a few authorities—only 11 of them—whose performance is monitored by


the Department in monthly progress reports. There are others with which I have had meetings to find out the cause of the delay and to try to overcome it. More recently, we have written to all the non-monitored London boroughs, including Sutton, for information on the state of their dealing with right-to-buy applications. As a last resort, my right hon. Friend can intervene and take over sales, but that power would naturally be used only as a last resort.
The law sets time limits for certain parts of the sale procedure. The landlord must normally respond to a tenant's claim to exercise the right to buy within four weeks, confirming or denying that the tenant is entitled to buy. If the tenant does have the right to buy, the next step is for the landlord to serve notice giving the purchase price, and estimates of any service charges payable. This further notice must be served within eight weeks if the sale is freehold and 12 weeks if it is a leasehold sale. If the property is a flat rather than a House, the sale will, of course, be on a long lease. When the landlord has served notice of the purchase price, the tenant may decide against buying. If, however, the tenant decides to go ahead it is necessary to sort out the legal details. There is no statutory timetable for that process, but when all the details have been settled the landlord is under a duty to complete the sale.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam suggested that, in cases where the landlord has held up a sale under the right to buy, there ought to be a corresponding reduction in the period during which the purchaser is liable to repay discount. As the House will know, a tenant who exercises the right to buy must undertake to pay back discount if the house or flat is disposed of within three years. My hon. Friend's proposal, as I understand it, is, that if the landlord had held up the application for, say, six months, the tenant would be free to sell two and a half years after buying the property without paying back any discount.
That is an interesting idea, which I would like to think about further. We already propose a different change in the law to enable tenants to take more effective action if their application gets stuck. Amendments to the Housing Bill are being prepared for that purpose. The tenant will first have to serve notice on the landlord calling on it to proceed with the next stage in the process within a certain time. The tenant must allow at least a month. The landlord may, of course, deny that it is holding up progress, or it may simply take whatever action is needed. Otherwise, however, the tenant may serve a further notice.
The effect of this will be that the landlord has to treat the rent paid by the tenant from the date as an advance payment toward the purchase price of the house. Once the landlord has taken the next step in the process, the rent paid from that time on will go back to being treated in the usual way; but if there is further delay the tenant may repeat the process. The effect will be that, when the sale is eventually completed, the sale price will be reduced by an amount equal to the rent paid during any period when the application was held up. The tenant will thus be compensated by having that rent converted, in effect, into mortgage repayments.
I understand that some authorities face more problems than others. In some areas, especially in London, it is not easy to recruit staff of the right qualification and caliber

—especially people such as lawyers, surveyors and valuers whose skills are in great demand. Sometimes it is possible to buy those services from the private sector and l urge Sutton council to give that very serious consideration. That may not be the only answer, however, and I would also urge the council to ensure that it is making the most effective use of existing resources and giving this important work the high priority it deserves.
Specialist advice is needed particularly for estimates of service charges, which can be a major worry for tenants buying flats. Although those requirements add to the council's work in processing applications, it is right that purchasers should have those safeguards. Making the position clear at the outset also reduces the risk of disputes in the future.
Authorities could be tempted to set charges high to avoid any risk of loss that would have to be borne by the housing revenue account, and also to reduce the amount of detailed professional work. That could mean that charges are so high as to put off anyone buying—which is the last thing we want. As we know from experience of the private sector, service charges for flats can be high anyway. There is a statutory requirement to assume, in valuing the flat, that the estimated service charges will be paid in full. High estimates will thus reduce the price.
Sutton's performance is not monitored and it is not one of the authorities I asked to come and see me. I am therefore all the more concerned to hear that the delays are so serious, both in the length of time and in the number of people affected. Obviously hon. Members will know more of what goes on in their constituencies than we in the Department can hope to know.

Sir Neil MacFarlane: The Minister will be aware that many years ago we used to publish a list of those authorities that were poor performers in the processing of planning applications. I believe that my hon. Friend now has responsibility for that. Does she believe that the time is now ripe for a similar performance status to be applied to this problem?

Mrs. Roe: I shall certainly bear that in mind. As my hon. Friend has said, we rate the performance of authorities with regard to planning applications. I am concerned by what my hon. Friends have said, and I would be happy if they could give me more information.
The council's problem, we understand, is one of staff needed to calculate service charges. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, a substantial backlog had built up by the time a new leasehold surveyor had been appointed and started work. We share the council's hopes that that work will soon be brought up to date. We do not know what other types of staff have been recruited by the council but naturally I should regret their being put on to other work while the arrears in right-to-buy work persist. My officials are ready to meet the council to discuss problems if that would be helpful.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for initiating this interesting and useful debate. I shall consider seriously the points that they have raised and I look forward to receiving the documentation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Twelve o'clock.